Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL

To be read the Third time upon Monday next.

DARTFORD TUNNEL [MONEY]

Considered in Committee.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise variations of the works authorised by the Dartford Tunnel Acts, 1930 and 1937, or to empower the County Councils of Essex and Kent to construct new works in connection with the said first mentioned works, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any grant or other payment made or sum provided by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under or in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Basutoland (Ritual Murders)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what reply he has made to the communication of the Basutoland African Congress complaining of the amendment of Proclamation 59 of 1938 into Proclamation 12 of 1944 and criticising the inadequacy of the conditions of the Jones Inquiry into the ritual murders; and if he will authorise an investigation by a commission which would have the confidence of the Basuto people.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): My noble Friend is considering,

in consultation with the High Commissioner, a letter which he received from the Basutoland African Congress at the end of February. No reply has yet been sent.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only the Members of this House but also the leaders of the Basutoland African Congress deplore these practices just as much as anyone, and would the hon. Gentleman consider the facts that the amendment to the Proclamation, which has substituted South African principles of law for British principles, and this one-man inquiry, have tended to worsen the position rather than better it? Would he also consider appointing a commission which would include representatives from other African countries, which would have the confidence of the Basuto people?

Mr. Alport: I accept that there is a strong feeling of horror, both here and in Basutoland, at these incidents, but I cannot accept the strictures which the hon. Gentleman directs against the Jones Commission which, after all, was appointed by a Labour Government, who were satisfied with the results, as, indeed, we are satisfied that it was an able and effective investigation. I would say to the House, however, that this is a problem which touches very closely the interests of the Basuto people. It is a complicated one and, therefore, I am sure that the House would wish my noble Friend and the High Commissioner to give the fullest thought to a particularly difficult legal problem.

African Students (Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland)

Dr. King: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many African students from Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland respectively have received training in technical schools and are employed in the Civil Service or in skilled occupations in their respective territories.

Mr. Alport: In Basutoland 125 Africans who have had technical training, are employed in Government service. In Swaziland, six are so employed. No figures are yet available for the Bechuanaland Protectorate.


It is not known how many of such persons in the three Territories are employed in skilled occupations outside Government service.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the future of the Protectorates, as indeed of the whole of Africa, depends on the expansion of the numbers of technically skilled and responsible citizens? Having made a beginning, will the hon. Gentleman do everything he can to extend this development in the Protectorates for which he bears so heavy a responsibility?

Mr. Alport: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and I would say that we propose to establish a trade school as part of the plan for the development of education in the territory of Bechuanaland, which I hope will assist. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are as anxious as he is to develop this side of African progress.

Dr. King: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many students from Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland are studying at the universities in the Union of South Africa; and what provision is proposed for their university training when such universities are closed to them.

Mr. Alport: Thirteen African students from the High Commission Territories are now studying at universities in the Union of South Africa and it is understood that they can complete their courses.
After 1958 no new African students from the High Commission Territories will be admitted to universities in the Union of South Africa. University training will be available, as it is now, at the Pope Pius XII College, Basutoland, and at United Kingdom universities. It is hoped that some places may also be available at the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that educated opinion throughout the world condemns South African education policy of segregating black students and even excluding them from education? Will he bear in mind that he owes it as a responsibility both to the Protectorates and to social justice to see that no student in the Protectorate who is capable of profiting by university education is deprived of it?

Mr. Alport: The reason that vacancies at Fort Hare College and Durban Medical School will no longer be available is that all the vacancies are required for Union students from now onwards.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While joining in condemning the action which has resulted in this very sorry position, may I ask the Minister whether he will consult the Colonial Secretary to consider making available to these students from the Protectorates such additional moneys as will be required to enable them to become students in some of the other African colleges which have been helped by our funds and in which we do not practise discrimination?

Mr. Alport: The use of other African universities, for instance in Eastern Africa, is a matter which I think should be investigated, and I will certainly undertake to carry the right hon. Gentleman's views further.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when these places in the Union universities are no longer available, the would-be students, for instance from Bechuanaland, who are capable of benefiting by university education, will not be in a worse position than they were before?

Mr. Alport: That is certainly our intention and hope.

Trade with China

Mr. Swingler: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) to what extent he has consulted Commonwealth Governments in the last six months about the relaxation of strategic controls on trade with China;
(2) if he will consult with the Governments of the Commonwealth with a view to arriving at a common policy on the subject of trade relations with China.

Mr. Alport: Some Commonwealth Governments do not maintain strategic controls on their trade with China and I do not think that a common policy for all Commonwealth Governments is feasible. Those which do maintain such controls are fully aware of the United Kingdom Government's practice and of our policy. There has therefore been no need for formal consultation with them during the last six months. Canada is


represented on the Consultative Group at Paris and there is close and continuous contact between Canadian and United Kingdom representatives in that body.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Member aware that the Prime Minister of Canada recently told the Canadian House of Commons that there had been no official consultations between the United Kingdom representatives and the Canadian representatives on this subject and that he knew nothing of British representations in favour of relaxing the controls? As Canada is represented in this Group, is that not highly unsatisfactory? Will not the hon. Member take action to get some official co-ordination between Canadian and United Kingdom policy?

Mr. Alport: I think the hon. Member is mistaken in his interpretation of the Prime Minister's statement which, as I understand it, referred to formal representations. There has been informal consultation between our representatives in Paris throughout the last six months.

Kashmir (Situation)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he is taking to resolve the difficulties in British-Indian relations arising out of the difference of view regarding the Kashmir situation.

Mr. Alport: As Sir Pierson Dixon said in the Security Council on the 20th February,
 We approach the Kashmir question in the simple spirit of wishing to see a just and fair solution. We stand ready to consider our attitude to Kashmir on the merits of the cases put forward by both parties and in examining the cases put forward are deeply conscious of the vital necessity of making a positive contribution towards peaceful progress in the subcontinent. Her Majesty's Government's attitude is based on no other considerations whatsoever".
This continues to be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Kashmir dispute. I think that as this is more fully understood many of the present misunderstandings will be dispelled.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British-Indian relations were strained enough as it was over Suez and that the new situation places yet another strain on them? Is he aware that there is a widespread feeling that it arises out

of British commitments under the Bagdad Pact? Is he aware of the dangerous implications of the present drift? What is he doing to halt the drift, in view of the misunderstandings which exist?

Mr. Alport: I would not accept the hon. Member's contention. No doubt he has seen, as I have seen, a statement within the last few hours by Mr. Nehru on the subject of India's relations with the Commonwealth. In the circumstances of Mr. Jarring's presence in the subcontinent—we all hope that his mission will have a successful outcome—I think it will be best to leave the matter at that point at present.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Contrary to the implications in the last question, is not it a fact that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter is nothing more than an endorsement of the policies carried out by successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, as a result of the 1948 and 1949 substantive resolutions in the United Nations, agreed to by Great Britain, India, Pakistan and all countries represented there?

Mr. Alport: indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd: In view of this country's position in the Commonwealth, have the Government considered whether it is wise to intervene so actively in this Kashmir dispute? Nobody could want more than I that this country should take an active part in most United Nations activities, but is not this a rather special case where our intervention is almost bound to magnify the dispute and in particular to magnify danger to the future of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Alport: I am anxious, as we have always been anxious, to do anything we possibly can to help our fellow members of the Commonwealth to reach a just and proper solution to a very difficult problem.

Economic Co-operation and Development

Mr. Braine: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has yet received any replies or recommendations from Commonwealth Governments regarding his proposals for economic co-operation and development within the Commonwealth.

Mr. Leather: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what replies he has received from Commonwealth countries regarding economic co-operation on underdeveloped territories; and when he will he ready to make a statement.

Mr. Alport: As I said on 21st February in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite), the conclusions which the Government reach in the light of the views of other Commonwealth Governments, when these are all received, will be communicated to the House. We have asked High Commissioners to approach those Governments whose replies are still outstanding with the object of eliciting early replies. It may still be some weeks before all these are received.

Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole House called for a bold and imaginative lead on this subject as long ago as last November? Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to recent speeches by Sir Roy Welensky, by the Australian Minister of Labour and by the Australian High Commissioner in London, which all add up to one thing —that some Commonwealth countries want a pooling of resources, a declaration of priorities, and a co-ordinated investment policy? Can my hon. Friend say whether those are the proposals which the Government have in mind?

Mr. Alport: The Government are very well aware, and my noble Friend is very well aware, of the great interest in this subject which exists on both sides of the House, but this is a matter in which we are anxious as far as possible to obtain co-operation with other members of the Commonwealth and they must surely be given proper time to consider a far-reaching and difficult problem.

Mr. Brockway: While appreciating the size of this problem, may I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks he will obtain replies so that some discussion can take place in the House before the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers this summer?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member has posed his question with certain assumptions on which I have no comment to make.

Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind that the Commonwealth Economic Committee has already done a great deal of work in this direction and that a large amount of work has been carried out, is not it possible to get the Commonwealth Governments to expedite their answers or immediately to call together a meeting of Ministers to consider the matter?

Mr. Alport: It is perfectly true that considerable work has been done on estimating the raw material resources which are available in the Commonwealth, but what is at issue here is a question of financial policy which poses different problems as far as the Commonwealth Governments are concerned in so far as it is a question of providing the capital which is required. This is by no means easy when the majority of the Commonwealth countries are themselves net importers of capital.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. Would it be possible to appoint an official interpreter so that we can understand the meaning of the hon. Member's answers?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Ghana (Technical Aid)

Mr. Braine: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether it is intended that the United Kingdom should extend to Ghana schemes of technical aid, similar to those operating for India, Pakistan, and Ceylon.

Mr. Alport: We are in consultaion with the Government of Ghana in this matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Would not it be in keeping with the desires of both sides of the House if, in anticipation of the final decisions of the Commonwealth Conference, the Government now tabled legislation to amend the provisions which prohibit the Colonial Development Corporation from operating in these areas? Will not the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider whether the greatest help which we could render to Ghana and many of these territories, pending their future industrial development, would be to ensure the stability of their primary products on which their lives so largely depend?

Mr. Alport: That is a totally different question, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to put it down, I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Braine: Can my hon. Friend give the House some idea of the kind of technical or financial aid which he may have in mind?

Mr. Alport: We are in consultation with the Government of Ghana about this matter. The Government of Ghana have had a very large number of matters to preoccupy them over the last few weeks and I feel it only right—and that it would be the wish of the House—that they should be given full time to consider the implications of this proposal, which is intended to be helpful to them and which, I know, will be accepted as such by the Government of Ghana.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Potash (Imports from Europe)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries in Europe from which the exports of potash to the United Kingdom are subject to the arrangements of a cartel.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I have no detailed information, but imports from France, Western Germany and Spain have been in the hands of a single company. The present inquiry of the Monopolies Commission into the supply of chemical fertilisers will no doubt give additional information.

Sir P. Agnew: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any other countries which can act as sources of supply of potash for this country?

Sir D. Eccles: We get a little from Eastern Germany, but not very much.

Exports to China

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received in the last two years for licences to export diesel engines to China; how many of these were allowed and how many refused; and what were the ratings and values of the engines in each case.

Sir D. Eccles: Sixteen applications have been made in the last two years. Four were not proceeded with and the rest were rejected, except that a licence was granted for one engine of 85 horse- power valued at £407. The applications

refused had a total value of £741,872 and the horse-power ranged from 3½ h.p. to 300 h.p.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these engines, which were on the U.S.S.R. embargo list until the autumn of 1954, are still on the embargo list to China, although at the moment they are being exported or re-exported through Russia and other eastern countries to China? Does not he think that it is a tremendous disadvantage to British businessmen that Eastern European countries should be earning profits which they might be earning here? Is not it humiliating to the Minister to realise that, while we may have a trade policy, we have, due to pressure from external sources, to operate within that trade policy an exceptions procedure which renders our whole position ridiculous?

Sir D. Eccles: As the hon. Member knows, the working of the China embargo is subject to consultation and agreement by the Paris Group, but that it has the unfortunate effects he says, I agree.'

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. As it is necessary to examine this subject very closely, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has now received from the Federation of British Industries and other trade associations for the further relexation of the strategic embargo on United Kingdom exports to China; and what reply he has made.

Sir D. Eccles: I have received a letter from the Sino-British Trade Committee which represents the interested associations.
The letter presses strongly the case for aligning the strategic embargo on exports to China with the strategic lists for the Soviet bloc.
I told the Committee that full weight will be given to its representations; and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign Office, informed the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) yesterday that it is likely that this topic will be raised in the Bermuda discussions.

Mr. Jay: Although it was satisfactory to learn yesterday that this matter will be raised at Bermuda, now that there is general agreement both in British industry and in most parts of the House that the embargo has completely outlived its usefulness, cannot the President say that it is now British Government policy to try to secure at least a major relaxation?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that we might wait to see how the Prime Minister gets on in these discussions.

Mr. Jay: Could not the President assure us that it is now British Government policy to secure a relaxation and that the Prime Minister will be pressing for that in Bermuda?

Sir D. Eccles: That is the subject of the conversations.

Mrs. Castle: Is not it a fact that, following Sir Anthony Eden's visit to Washington last year, the House was promised that the British representatives in the Paris Group would press in the Paris Group for a revision of the China embargo list? We have now learned from the Canadian Prime Minister that no such discussions have taken place in the Paris Group. Is not it time, therefore, that the British Government showed a little spirit and guts in this matter and took unilateral action?

Sir D. Eccles: The British representatives in the Paris Group have never disguised their view that some relaxation would be helpful.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take his Answer just a little further? Will he bear in mind that, after all, this country is not at war, and that our need for exports is getting stronger every year? Would not it be worth while for this country to resume its freedom to trade with whom it likes, in what merchandise it chooses and on what conditions it can get?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I think there are certain fields in which it is highly desirable that we should act in concert with our allies.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say what demand there is from China for our exports, and does he think that, if the embargo were lifted, we should export very much to China?

Sir D. Eccles: I should like notice of that question.

Spring-Clip Knives

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at a meeting of representatives of the principal retailers' organisations convened by his Department in the autumn of 1956 the said representatives agreed to endorse a statement to be issued by his Department advising their member firms not to sell flick knives; and why the statement has not been issued yet by his Department.

Sir D. Eccles: The trade representatives were sympathetic to the object of the statement, but the action proposed would have required registration under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. As an alternative, wide publicity was given to the reply made on 29th November last by the then Secretary of State for the Home Department to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington), on the subject of spring-clip knives.

Mr. Janner: is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the retailers' organisations are very perturbed about the situation, that the Minister himself pressed upon them the necessity of issuing a statement to the various retailers themselves, and that since that date people have been attacked with these knives? Will he do something before someone is murdered, as has happened in the past?

Sir D. Eccles: My information is that there was an encouraging response to the appeal to traders which was published in a number of trade journals. Of course, there is a legitimate demand for these knives from farmers and fishermen and it will be impossible entirely to prevent them from getting into circulation, but I understand that the situation is better.

Film Producers (Loans)

Mrs. White: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that film producers who were obliged to obtain loans from the National Film Finance Corporation prior to 9th March, owing to failure to re-enact legislation before that date, are obliged to pay interest for the additional period; and if he will take steps to arrange for such interest to be waived.

Sir D. Eccles: I have asked the National Film Finance Corporation to see that film producers are not put to extra expense in this way.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are most gratified to have that reply, because we were informed that film producers had to pay 6½ per cent. interest on many thousands of pounds for a number of weeks? We are delighted to know that the Government have taken these steps to put right an injustice which they created by their own laggard legislation.

European Common Market

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the chief products of French, Belgian and Dutch colonies which will have to be taken into consideration by the United Kingdom in its attitute to the proposed Common Market in considering the inclusion of those colonies in the plan for a European Free Trade Area; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: Bananas, coffee, cocoa, citrus fruits, vegetable oils, rubber, hardwood and cotton are the chief products. We are consulting the Governments of the Colonies on the problems raised, and I am not in a position to add to the Answers given to Questions by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th February and 5th March.

Mr. Russell: As the inclusion of these territories puts a completely different complexion on the whole Common Market plan, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not enter into any commitments without first consulting the Colonies and obtaining their agreement?

Sir D. Eccles: That consultation is now taking place, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called a conference of colonial officials.

Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the consideration of the primary products coming from these countries in no way prejudices his own declaration that British agriculture will be excluded from any considerations of this country going into the Common Market or the Free Trade Area?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Braine: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in possession of details of the tariff which the Messina countries propose to apply to products of their own colonial territories and to those of countries outside the Common Market area.

Sir D. Eccles: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th March.

Mr. Braine: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, while we know that the Messina countries are going to reduce their tariffs between themselves phased over a period of fifteen years, we have absolutely no information as to the speed with which tariffs will be raised against the produce of other countries, including our own Colonial Territories, that this is a matter of great concern to Commonwealth producers, and that the lack of such information is jeopardising the popularity in this country of our association with the Free Trade Area?

Sir D. Eccles: I fully appreciate all that my hon. Friend has said. We want this information as soon as we can get it, and we understand that within a very few days the full text of the Treaty will be available.

Exports and Imports

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to increase exports from the United Kingdom, in view of the renewed demand for imports which will follow the increase in investment envisaged by the Government.

Sir D. Eccles: The Government's aim is to reduce inflation and thereby help the export trade. We shall continue to assist exporters through the direct services provided by the Government and, as necessary, by negotiation with other Governments.

Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his reply is the very reverse of reassuring? Does he realise that essential capital investment will provoke another severe balance of payments crisis unless there is a very large increase in exports? Does he also appreciate that the gloominess of the


prospect is in no way relieved by the fact that production has been completely stagnant since 1955?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir.

Electronic Valves and Cathode Ray Tubes (Report)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assurances he has received from the manufacturers of electronic valves and cathode ray tubes that restrictive agreements referred to by the Monopolies Commission report on that industry have been dissolved.

Sir D. Eccles: There is no occasion for the manufacturers to give me assurances. I understand that the price-fixing agreements have in the main been abandoned. Any that remain have no doubt been registered under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Mr. Jay: As the President kindly told me in a letter that he had been in error in informing the House that certain recommendations of the Commission had been adopted by the industry, would he now let the rest of the House into the secret? Can we know, because I do not think we do at present, what agreements mentioned by the Monopolies Commission have now been abandoned by this industry?

Sir D. Eccles: The Report records in page 1 that, as from 1st September, 1956, price-fixing by agreement was abandoned.

Barter Deals, Eastern Germany

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why he is now refusing import licences for goods from Eastern Germany, which were, until October last, allowed into this country.

Sir D. Eccles: I assume the hon. Member has in mind imports under barter deals. In these cases, we have to see what is the nature of the export to be taken in exchange.

Mr. Lewis: Naturally, the President would assume that, because he knows that there is no commercial trade agreement, so that it must be barter. Will he therefore answer the Question? Why is it that he has been allowing these imports and exports, on a barter basis.

but, since last October, he has been stopping the import of some of these goods? For what reason? What change has there been since last October?

Sir D. Eccles: The only change, if it is a change, is that we have not been able to get the purchases from Eastern Germany we had hoped to get under a barter deal, and, therefore, we are not going to give the import licences unless they do their share of the bargain.

Mr. Lewis: Is not it exactly the reverse? Are not our manufacturers in this country desirous and anxious to have these imports, and, in fact, has not the President himself stopped the goods coming in? Is not it the case that our goods, which are mainly Lancashire textile goods, have been desired by the East Germans, who are anxious to get them? Why hold up trade?

Sir D. Eccles: We have to look at each of these barter deals on its merits and see that both parties play fair.

Leipzig Fair

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he took to have an observer at the recent Leipzig Fair and whether he will make a statement on the report he has received from this official.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 31st January.

Mr. Lewis: Is the President aware that that Answer cannot apply to this Question, because that was before the Fair was held? I am now asking the Minister what steps he took to have someone there. Can he tell us whether anyone did go, whether they gave him any report, and whether or not eighty-eight firms, including such reputable names as Rolls-Royce, went with his knowledge, consent and backing? Can we have a further statement?

Sir D. Eccles: Officials went from the British staffs in Germany, because we have no relations with Eastern Germany. Therefore, it had to be an unofficial observer. The report, when it comes, will be confidential.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not it time the right hon. Gentleman shook up his ideas on this question? While we are aware that


we have no diplomatic relations with Eastern Germany, is not it a fact that the Leipzig Fair is attended by sellers and buyers from all over the world? Are not we losing export trade by the rather slack attitude which the Government take about East German relations?

Sir D. Eccles: I have no reason to think that we did not cover the Fair properly.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and the fact that there is obviously a need for the President to know that the West Germans are doing an increasing trade with Eastern Germany, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Trade with Russia

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the goods in the Soviet purchasing programme presented to the Government by Mr. Malyshev during his 1956 visit are subject to the strategic embargo; and what is the total value of United Kingdom exports thus held back.

Sir D. Eccles: It is estimated that between a third and a half of the goods in the Soviet purchasing programme are subject to the strategic embargo. I am not in a position to answer the second part of the Question.

Mr. Jay: Does not the President think that this embargo has become largely obsolete, and can he at least assure us that this matter is to be raised in the Bermuda conversations?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I should not have thought that the embargo was obsolete, and I have no idea whether it is to be raised or not.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what trade agreements he proposes to make with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the provision of non-dollar oil, newsprint and timber.

Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir. These are matters for private commercial negotiation.

Sir L. Plummer: Will not the President move in step with our French Allies who, last month, negotiated a treaty with the Soviet Union for the supply of goods of

this kind, valued at about £200 million? Why, if we can get these goods from the Soviet Union and other Soviet bloc countries, do we constantly turn our faces against them?

D. Eccles: We are not turning our faces against them. Imports of many of the main articles supplied by Russia come in free. Anyone who wants to can buy them.

Poznan Fair

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what financial and other support Her Majesty's Government intend to give to British firms participating in the forthcoming Poznan Fair.

Sir D. Eccles: The services of my Exhibitions and Fairs Branch have been made available to co-ordinate the exhibits of British firms showing at Poznan and there will be an official stand. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Poland is arranging to hold a reception in the pavilion housing these exhibits.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the President aware that the American Government are to build a pavilion of some 44,000 square feet in Poznan, and that the American Government are providing nearly 4 million dollars for the erection of American business stands at foreign fairs such as this? How does he think that compares with the disgraceful record which we showed at Poznan last year, where our contribution was four flagpoles?

Sir D. Eccles: Our hall this year is one of 12,000 square feet. I am told it will be a great improvement on last year.

Mr. Vane: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the four flagpoles were a more valuable contribution than four groundnuts?

Mr. H. Wilson: Without embarrassing the President by asking him how many flagpoles he is sending this year, may I ask him whether he recognises that the Government are in a very difficult position this year in that they are listening to American dictation on the question of our trade relations, not only with Poland and Eastern Germany, but with China and the Eastern bloc generally, while, at the same time, American business firms, even with the backing of the American Government, are getting in very


fast, so that, when there is a sudden thaw in American Government policy in this respect. we shall have been left behind?

Sir D. Eccles: I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are extending our trade with Poland, and that we have had some very useful conversations in the last few weeks.

Dollar Imports

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade the values of imports from dollar sources in the years 1954, 1955. 1956, respectively, of cereals and cereal preparations, animal feedingstuffs, tobacco and tobacco manufactures, wood, cotton, petroleum and petroleum products, and newsprint, dis-

Imports into the United Kingdom from





——
Canada £ millions
Other dollar area countries £ millions
Dollar area imports as percentage of total imports



1954
1955
1956
1954
1955
1956
1954
1955
1956


Cereals and cereal preparations
81·4
97·8
104·8
28·2
47·8
61·3
62·4
65·6
71·3


Feedingstuffs for animals and food wastes
3·1
7·9
10·9
2·4
6·7
3·9
12·8
26·6
29·0


Tobacco and tobacco manufactures
5·5
9·1
5·0
42·3
46·5
42·6
62·7
64·3
59·1


Wood
35·5
42·9
29·2
3·5
4·0
4·0
25·3
24·5
20·9


Cotton
Neg.
0·1
0·1
40·4
31·8
37·5
32·1
32·3
36·0


Petroleum and petroleum products
0·3
0·3
0·3
41·2
55·5
67·8
13·3
16·7
18·4


Newsprint in rolls
12·0
13·8
17·5
nil
nil
nil
70·0
65·1
66·4

Tobacco (Dollar Expenditure)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the President of the Board of Trade what expenditures of dollars have been incurred on the import of tobacco for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, respectively; and what percentage this represents of total tobacco imports into the United Kingdom.

Sir D. Eccles: The c.i.f. values of the tobacco and tobacco manufactures imported from the dollar area, including Canada, in 1954, 1955 and 1956, were respectively £47·8 million, £55·6 million and £47·6 million or 62·7 per cent., 64·3 per cent. and 59·1 per cent. of total tobacco imports. The imports for these years included tobacco worth $8 million,

tinguishing in each case between Commonwealth and other dollar sources; and what proportion dollar imports are of total imports in these commodities.

Sir D. Eccles: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir L. Plummer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that we are doing all we can to increase our trade with Commonwealth and non-dollar countries, and whether, at the same time, he is satisfied that we are not permitting political prejudices to overcome our economic needs for the importation of non-dollar raw materials and food?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

Following is the Answer:

$15 million and $12 million respectively acquired from the United States of America as dollar-free commodity aid.

Mr. Craddock: Does not the Minister agree that a careful study should be made of this problem in order that future expenditure can be increased in the sterling area?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. We are constantly studying the problem.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reductions he contemplates in the allocation of dollars for the import of tobacco from the 1957 crop.

Sir D. Eccles: This year's allocation has not yet been made.

Canned Pilchards (Imports)

Mr. Hayman: asked the President of the Board of Trade the imports of South African and Japanese canned pilchards, separately, in each of the last five years, to the latest convenient date.

Sir D. Eccles: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hayman: Is the President aware that the very large imports of South African canned pilchards have been a

IMPORTS OF PILCHARDS IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS


——
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956



Tons
£'000
Tons
£'000
Tons
£'000
Tons
£'000
Tons
£'000


Union of South Africa (excluding S.W. Africa territory)
4,894
756
2,048
327
1,069
154
2,453
327
991
135


South West Africa territory
745
123
655
102
2,952
374
6,235
800
11,194
1,511


Japan
neg.
neg.
neg.
neg.
neg.
neg.
nil
nil
nil
nil


World total
5,681
893
2,704
429
4,022
528
8,690
1,127
12,185
1,646

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Chief Executive Officers (Salary)

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the commencing salary of a chief executive officer at September, 1939, May, 1945, October, 1951, and January, 1957; what salaries would have been necessary on the last three dates to compensate for changes in the cost of living and taxation while maintaining the same net purchasing power; and how the net purchasing power of the salaries actually given varies, taking the September, 1939, figure as 100.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Taking the case of a chief executive officer who is married with one child, and assuming the net purchasing power of his commencing salary in September, 1939, to be 100, the corresponding figures would be 51·2 in May, 1945; 48·5 in October, 1951, and

very great embarrassment to the small but important Cornish fishing industry and that the new agreement he has made with Japan in relation to Japanese imports is causing consternation in Cornwall?

Sir D. Eccles: It is true that imports from the South West Africa territory have increased very much, but Japan has a very small quota, and my information is that none has yet arrived.

Following is the Answer:

62·5 in January, 1957. With permission I will circulate the figures of salary in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Price: Should I be interpreting these figures correctly if I said that they reveal that between September, 1939, and October, 1951, the standard of living had fallen to below 50 per cent. and that since then it has recovered to something approaching two-thirds of the 1939 standard? Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures are typical of practically all the middle classes? Will he impress upon his right hon. Friend that we look forward to another instalment in the recovery on 9th April?

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the untimely—or timely—demise of the Middle Class Alliance sponsored by the hon. Member, is the Financial Secretary now prepared to leave these matters to be settled by arrangement between the Treasury and the trade unions concerned?

Following is the information:


COMMENCING SALARY OF A CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MARRIED WITH ONE CHILD


——

Actual gross income
Equivalent of 1939 gross income at current rates of taxation




£
£


1939
…
900
—


May, 1945
…
960
2,185


October, 1951
…
1,100
2,886


January, 1957
…
1,635
3,180

Income Tax (Child Allowances)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the cost to the Revenue of increasing the child allowance for Income Tax purposes from £100 to £120 per child on all children over 11 years old only.

Mr. Powell: About £11 million in a full year.

Mr. Freeth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that for a very small sum the Treasury could give very great help to people whose children are reaching the most expensive period of their lives, and it would, in addition, be a very great incentive to parents to keep their children at school after they reached the age of 15 years if the child allowance were graduated in this way?

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend will realise that that is a matter falling within the scope of the Budget, which I cannot anticipate.

Farm Subsidies and Production Grants

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the proportion of the farm subsidies and production grants which return to the Exchequer in taxation receipts.

Mr. Powell: Not enough is known about the distribution of farm subsidies and production grants betwen farmers in different income groups to enable an accurate estimate to be made; but the proportion is probably less than 10 per cent.

Mr. Hurd: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would give the public a much truer picture of farm subsidies if

the Chancellor could have a sample test taken of the balancing figure of tax paid against the subsidies? There is a great deal of misconception in the public mind. My own guess is that the balancing figure is nearly £40 million a year.

Mr. Powell: I think that that is unlikely to be true, because the total amount of tax on farmers' incomes is not much more than 10 per cent. of the amount of the subsidy.

Mr. Jay: If this argument is to be raised, would not it apply to many other forms of public expenditure, such as education?

Old-Age Pensioners (Tobacco Duty)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet surmounted the practical difficulties in the way of extending the scope of the scheme to relieve old-age pensioners of the additional duty on tobacco, introduced in 1947, to include persons drawing National Assistance benefits but not a State pension; and when the new arrangements will come into force.

Mr. Powell: I am afraid that no practicable solution to these difficulties has been found.

Mr. Mathew: In making any possible future adjustments, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this small category of persons includes a number of people suffering real hardship and need?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. I recognise that these arrangements, which were started in 1947, involve a number of anomalies, but neither Government have yet found the means of removing them.

Mr. H. Wilson: We debated these anomalies in our discussion of the Finance Bill last year. If, after all these months, the Government have not found the answer, will the hon. Member now give effect to the suggestion made from these benches, that the Government should wipe out these concessions in return for a really generous increase in the old-age pension?

University Teachers (Salaries)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the concern among university teachers aft his decision that the implementation of


the new salary scales shall be deferred until 1st August; and if he will reconsider this decision.

Mr. Powell: The increases run from the beginning of the next academic year, which the Government have decided is in all the circumstances the right starting date.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the satisfaction derived from this new salary scale is almost totally destroyed by the decision to delay its coming into effect until fifteen months after the claim was first put in? Will he take into account not only the hardship being suffered by university teachers today, but also the fact that more and more teachers, especially of science and technology, are leaving the profession to go into industry every month?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member indicates, it was the problem of maintaining the level of recruitment to this profession which was the main factor under consideration in the review of salaries. I think that that has been met by the announcement of the introduction of the new rates from the beginning of the next academic year.

Oil (Dollar Expenditure)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what items of dollar expenditure he is expecting to see reductions in order to meet the increased cost of oil from dollar sources.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): The extra burden of buying non-sterling oil is one which we must meet by expanding our export trade.

Mr. Vane: Does my right hon. Friend mean that when dollars are short for essential commodities, apart from oil, no effort whatever will be made to cut down the spending of dollars upon any commodities which we can comfortably do with less of?

Mr. Birch: My hon. Friend will appreciate that imports have to be paid for, wherever they come from, and the object of the Government's policy is to improve the general trade balance.

British South West Africa Company

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the application for an American-controlled company to take over a controlling interest in the shares in the British South West Africa Company.

Mr. Birch: The Tsumeb Corporation, a South African mining company controlled in the United States, was given permission under the Exchange Control Act to make an offer for the shares of the South West Africa Company. It is our policy to permit such investment in the sterling area unless it would result in any actual disadvantage.
Permission was given on the condition that if the Tsumeb Corporation's offer were accepted it intended to maintain and if possible increase the output of vanadium from the mine which would, of course, continue to be available to United Kingdom purchasers for sterling; that it intended to use its resources to develop the properties of the South West Africa Company, and that it would not seek to transfer the domicile of the company outside the United Kingdom.
As the House will be aware, however, a British mining group, headed by New Consolidated Gold Fields, has now obtained control of the South West Africa Company.

Mr. H. Wilson: This Question was put down before the last development referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but in view of this history—upon which we have been pressing the Government for several weeks—and in view of the disastrous consequences of the Government's decision in regard to Trinidad last year, will the right hon. Gentleman —despite the happy ending in this case, which we all welcome—take another look at these applications and see that a much stricter view is taken on the part of the Treasury of applications by American companies to buy up vital Commonwealth assets?

Mr. Birch: I realise that the Question was put down before this development took place, but a question of general policy is involved here. As the right hon. Member will remember, at the conclusion of the conference which took place in September, 1949, between the Americans, the Canadians and ourselves,


a statement was put out that it was of vital importance to increase dollar investment in the sterling area. We are constantly urging the Americans to follow good creditor policies, and it would be wrong to be too obstructive about investments, provided that we are confident that no national interest is prejudiced. In this case, given the conditions, which were agreed, we were confident that no national interest was prejudiced.

West Germany (Post-war Debt)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amount of the West German post-war debt to the United Kingdom in December, 1951, and December, 1956, respectively.

Mr. Birch: In December, 1951, the amount of the United Kingdom claim for post-war economic assistance to West Germany was £201·8 million. Under an agreement with the Federal Republic, signed in February, 1953, the United Kingdom accepted as full and final discharge of the debt the payment of £150 million. In December, 1956, the amount of the debt was £120 million.

Mr. Wilson: Since no Conservative Member was more critical about what used to he called unrequited exports when we on this side of the House were in office than was the right hon. Gentleman himself, and since these were unrequited exports at the time, will the right hon. Gentleman, quite fairly, now pay a tribute to the fact that this Government have been happily living on the proceeds of these unrequited exports in our E.P.U. settlement for many years; and, further, will he recognise that the instalment of Adenauer aid and which the Government have accepted of £75 million would not have been possible but for the surplus we had in our trading relations with West Germany during the period of the Labour Government?

Mr. Birch: That raises a great many questions. No one was more critical of the policy initiated in Germany when these debts were incurred than I was, if I may say so.

Imperial Institute (Campanile)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what boring test has been made with his sanction by the

Imperial College of Science and Technology to test the stability of the unsupported campanile at the Imperial Institute; and what was the result of such test.

Mr. Powell: I am informed that borehole tests by a firm of specialist contractors were started last October and completed early this year. A final report will be made very shortly to the architect retained by the College for the expansion scheme.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the conflict surrounding the proposal for the demolition of the Imperial Institute, will the Minister say whether he has taken any—and, if so what—expert architectural and engineering advice about whether the tower would survive unsupported?

Mr. Powell: These tests are designed to enable a decision to be taken on that point., I understand that the tests are being made by one of the most expert firms for the purpose.

Post-war Credits

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount repaid in post-war credits during 1956; and what is the amount now outstanding.

Mr. Powell: The amount of post-war credits repaid in the calendar year 1956 was approximately £17·4 million. The total amount now outstanding is estimated at about £466 million.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is altogether deplorable that successive post-war Governments have withheld this vast sum of money from the people to whom they owe it while at the same time insisting on the prompt payment of taxation and other debts? Further, may I ask whether he could once again consider this question of the prompt payment of post-war credits in case of hardship, which could quite easily be defined through the machinery of National Assistance?

Mr. Powell: The question of the future of post-war credits is one within the scope of the Budget which I must not anticipate, but my hon. Friend will, no doubt, recall that the conditions of repayment of these credits have been greatly improved since the party opposite went out of office.

Mr. Wilson: Since we no longer expect Her Majesty's Government to take much account of the views of the House of Commons on these questions, will the hon. Gentleman at least take action on the decision—if one can use that word—of the Tory Party Conference of two years ago, which would appear to be quite mandatory on hon. Members opposite? If he desires to know how to implement what I am sure is the will of the entire House in this respect, will he look at the advice given by the Leader of the Opposition in April, 1955, on how best this question could be dealt with?

Schedule A Tax (Yield)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net yield, after allowing for refund, in each of the last three financial years of Schedule A tax, and the estimated cost of collection in each year.

Mr. Powell: The net yield of tax assessed under Schedule A, after allowing for discharges and repayments, in each of the last three financial years is estimated at £94 million, £97 million and £92 million respectively. Separate figures for the cost of collection of this tax are not available.

Mr. Freeth: Will not my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the great care with which people try to avoid paying as much of this tax as possible, the cost of collection is probably very high, and that, as the rates of householders have gone up substantially this year, and are likely to go up further next year, the retention of this tax, whose philosophic basis seems to be quite unsatisfactory, remains a very strong disincentive to potential house-owners?

Mr. Powell: It seems unlikely that the cost of the collection of this tax is a very high proportion, since the total cost of raising all Inland Revenue dues is less than one-third of the yield of the Schedule A tax alone.

Economic Statistics

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in obtaining the more up-to-date statistical information and the improvement in economic advice which his predecessor indicated as necessary in the Budget statement on 17th April, 1956.

Mr. Birch: The Prime Minister, when Chancellor, made a statement on 1st August, 1956, setting out an immediate programme for the improvement of economic statistics. I am glad to say that with the co-operation of business and the public, considerable progress has been made in getting more comprehensive and up-to-date information. For example, a larger sample of firms now provide quarterly figures of capital investment and of stocks, and also, for the first time, of profits. Quarterly estimates of national expenditure and its components were published for the first time in January, 1957.

Mr. Cronin: I concede that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman indicates that there has been some improvement in the statistical information, but does not it also suggest that there has been no improvement whatever in the quality and quantity of the economic advice available to the Chancellor? Does the present Chancellor confine himself still to last year's Bradshaw, or is he looking at this year's Old Moore's Almanac?

Mr. Birch: The situation has improved.

Purchase Tax (Musical Instruments)

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate yield of Purchase Tax on musical instruments for the latest available year.

Mr. Powell: Excluding gramophones, radio-gramophones, record-players, and records, the yield from musical instruments in the calendar year 1956 was nearly £1 million.

Dr. King: Against that pitifully small sum will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to consider, when thinking about repealing this tax, that it is a disincentive to real as distinct from recorded music, and that instrumentalists are the only professional men in the country who have to pay tax on the instruments by which they earn their living? Is he aware that, whereas every other country subsidises this dollar-earning industry, we are taxing it?

Mr. Powell: I do not regard £1 million as a pitifully small sum, but my right hon. Friend has noted the point made by the hon. Member.

Supplementary Civil Estimates (Salaries and Wages)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the figure of £54,500,000, representing the total net increase in salaries and wages provided for in the Supplementary Civil Estimates for the year 1956–57, applies to non-industrial civil servants.

Mr. Powell: Very approximately, £20 million.

Purchase Tax (Cooker Safety Device)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that 30 per cent. Purchase Tax has been imposed on the safety device for cookers which won the award in the international competition; and as safety attachments are now fitted to electric and gas fires, free of Purchase Tax, if he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. Lady's suggestion.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend that I should like him to note my cooperation with the hon. Lady opposite in this matter? May I have an answer?

Mr. Powell: The answer is, "Yes, Sir".

Sterling Balances (Publication)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now publish figures of sterling balances quarterly instead of twice yearly.

Mr. Birch: The Government believes that the practice, established by its predecessors, of publishing these figures only half-yearly with the Balance of Payments Estimate remains the best. Figures for the end of 1956 will in fact be published at the beginning of next month.

Mr. Wilson: While we recognise that the Government have not had any ideas since 1951—except bad ones—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that at a time of great international complication in our -gold and dollar reserves, it is vital to have more up-to-date figures of sterling balances in order to appreciate them; and, since we have nothing before the House or the country later than the sterling balances at June, 1956, is the right

hon. Gentleman satisfied about that or is he still looking up the trains in last June's Bradshaw?

Mr. Birch: I recognise that there is a substantial point here. This next return will come before the Budget. I will convey the point made by the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend.

SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (DISPUTES)

Mr. Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the further developments in the shipbuilding and engineering disputes.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Since my statement to the House yesterday, I have seen representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation. They informed me that they are willing to go to arbitration and accept the award if the unions will do the same. The unions, have, however, made it clear that their attitude towards arbitration is unchanged.
I have just come from a meeting with the representatives of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and I am meeting the union representatives later this afternoon. The House will appreciate that, as I am in the middle of these discussions, it would not be appropriate for me to make any further statement.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman's statement means, of course, that there is no change since he injected the idea of a single arbitrator into this matter. Is it not the case, since he has now so well stated the employers' view that they are willing to go to arbitration, that the unions are willing to negotiate with the employers and end this strike?
If the Minister wants to see the end of the strike, is it not necessary for him now—and I urge him again, now—to call the leaders of both sides together and to suggest that negotiations should take place? Is it not a fact that the employers also feel that they have some views about the efficiency of the industry and that the union leaders would be quite willing to discuss these matters if the question of negotiations on matters of wages were reopened?
The second aspect of this matter is a by-product of the strike and refers to the sailing of the "Queen Mary" from Southampton. I do not want to make the situation more difficult and, therefore, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in as measured terms as I can, whether he will not use his influence within the Cabinet on the Government not to use Admiralty tugs for the purpose of moving a ship about which there is a dispute, giving the impression that the Government are taking sides in this matter, which would have very serious repercussions upon the whole Port of Southampton and the shipping ports in the country as a whole?
As we are very anxious to get this strike settled and to prevent the engineering strike taking place, has not the right hon. Gentleman a golden opportunity today to arrange for the meetings which have been suggested continuously from this side, under his personal chairmanship, to start negotiations, so that the strike could be ended within a few hours?

Mr. Macleod: As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is true that the unions wish to negotiate direct with the employers. I and my officials are really only a means to that end, and, of course, that would be the end that we wish to see.
The present position is that I am now in the middle of discussions. I must ask to be forgiven for not going into details. I have just seen the employers. The unions are coming to see me at six o'clock tonight. I intend to open with them the field to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as I have made clear on a number of occasions to the House. I do not quite know yet what response I will get.
When I spoke about a meeting under my chairmanship, I said that I rather hoped that such a meeting would take place tomorrow, that is, today, and I still hope that. I hope to have meetings throughout this day. I do not know how long they will go on. The position remains as it was, but when I meet both unions and employers I will try to move in the very fields to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
On the question of the "Queen Mary," I am aware of the position and of the repercussions. As I explained to the House yesterday, and as I am sure the

right hon. Gentleman knows, questions about executive decisions on the sailing of the liner are not questions which should be addressed to me.

Mr. Robens: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will work along the lines of trying to get both sides under his personal chairmanship this evening. It would be as well if, at this stage, we left the situation with the right hon. Gentleman and expressed the hope that his efforts will be successful in solving this great problem, which can only bring great disaster to the country if the strike goes on.

Mr. Grimond: Is there some chance of progress being made on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman indicated, improvement of productivity against increase in wages? Will the Minister be in touch with the individual unions concerned with the demarcation rules?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; that is not a matter that would concern the Ministry directly. We have, in another context, moved, through the National Joint Advisory Council, for action in the field of restrictive practices as far as the union side is concerned, and a great deal of progress has been made. Fundamentally, it is not a matter in which the Government can do much more than indicate that they would like to see a move made. The details are bound to be for negotiation between the two sides.

Mr. Lee: While associating myself with what has been said about further negotiations, and not wishing to exacerbate them, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in connection with restrictive practices—a matter which has now been hinted at by the Leader of the Liberal Party—he has notice that today Swan Hunter's have announced a 31 per cent. increase in profits last year? In view of that, is it not necessary to point out that that increase could not have come about if restrictive practices on a very wide scale were being observed?

Mr. Macleod: Figures of the profits, productivity, and so on, of the industry are very well known. It is also known that in the field of productivity losses go much wider than restrictive practices, and there could also be something of an improvement.

Mr. Gibson: May I ask that there will be no provocative action, such as the use of the Admiralty tugs at Southampton?

Mr. Macleod: I could not agree with the word "provocative".

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 25TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

TUESDAY, 26TH MARCH and WEDNESDAY, 27TH MARCH—Report stage of the Rent Bill. [1st and 2nd Allotted Days.]

THURSDAY, 28TH MARCH—Third Reading of the Rent Bill. [3rd Allotted Day.]

FRIDAY, 29TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

At the end of the business today, we shall ask the House to approve the Report of the Business Committee on the remaining stages of the Rent Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Defence White Paper will be published in the course of next week? Also, when may we expect publication of the Economic Survey and Balance of Payments White Paper?

Mr. Butler: I could not give an undertaking about the Defence White Paper, whether it will actually be published next week, but it will be published without undue delay. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and let the right hon. Gentleman and the House have the date of publication of the Economic Survey and the Balance of Payments White Paper.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a promise was given that the Defence White Paper would be published before the end of March, and that if it is not published before the 29th that promise will not have

been fulfilled. We are, naturally, anxious that the Economic White Papers should be published several days in advance of the Budget.

Mr. Butler: I hope that it will be possible to publish the Economic Survey a week before the Budget, that is, on 2nd April. I was not giving a final date, because I was not certain. I hope that the Balance of Payments Paper will be published on the 3rd, that is, next day. The White Paper on National Income and Expenditure will be published later the same week. They will all be before the Budget.
I realise that a statement was made hoping that the Defence White Paper would be published before the end of the month. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There has been a certain amount of delay about it. There is no mystery about the delay; the White Papers could not be published quite so quickly as we had hoped.

Mr. G. Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman take us into his confidence a little further? We were not only told that it would be published, but that it would be published before the end of the month. What is meant by "not quite so quickly as we had hoped"? I understand that it is already in its fifteenth draft. Is it not time that the Government came to a conclusion about this?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman has seen the fifteenth draft of the White Paper I hope that he will show it to me later, because I should be glad to see it.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the Lord Privy Seal realise that the House has not yet had the Service Estimates before it in precise form? Until this White Paper is before us I presume that the Service Estimates will be delayed. We are approaching the period of the Budget and the Finance Bill to follow it. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose is to be the procedure now in presenting the Service Estimates to the House?

Mr. Butler: We intend that the main Service Estimates shall be properly discussed by the House and they will be published with that in view. That was indicated to the hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates) when the Prime


Minister spoke on this subject on 7th March. We are a little later than we had anticipated in the publication of these documents, but when they are published it will be seen that all the trouble will have been well worth while.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not time we had a further debate on the European Free Trade Area? Is it not increasingly clear, from all the Answers to Questions on this subject, that since the new proposal to bring in the overseas territories of France and Belgium the Government do not know where they are? Is it not possible that they might get some guidance from the House?

Mr. Butler: The Government know perfectly well where they are. They are here and intend to remain here. The position about the Free Trade Area is that we have noted that the Messina countries have made this addition of overseas territories, including the Belgian Congo. That raises a major consideration in relation to the whole project. I am not able to state a time for a debate, but I have registered the opinion of various sides of the House about this project and I have already discussed it with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only accept the request of the hon. Member, but I cannot give an undertaking at present about a debate.

Mr. H. Wilson: While supporting the request of my hon. Friend, which has been pressed repeatedly, may I take the Lord Privy Seal back to the question of the relationship between the Defence White Paper, the defence debate and the Budget? If the Defence White Paper—which, obviously, is the result of an incredible muddle on the part of the Government—is to continue to be delayed, how does the right hon. Gentleman think that we can adequately debate the Budget, with its changes in taxation and expenditure, when the House has not had the opportunity of debating the biggest single element in Government expenditure for the raising of which we shall be listening to the Budget proposals?
If the House has no opportunity of saying either that the expenditure is excessive, that it is right, or that it is not enough, how can we make an intelligent

approach to the Budget, on behalf of the House as a whole, when we shall be debating tax changes of perhaps £½ million, £1 million or £5 million and there is the amount which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations called £1,500 million, which we have not yet debated?

Mr. Butler: The first thing is to publish the Defence White Paper. From it will emerge the nature of the defence plans on which hon. Members can form their opinions. The Prime Minister said on 7th March:
 There will be the debate on the full Army Estimates later in the year, for which, I should imagine, our ordinary procedure would apply." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 540.]
I understand that we can make agreements with the Opposition, through the usual channels, to see that there is an opportunity for full discussion of the main Estimates. I make the offer to the Leader of the Opposition so that there can be an opportunity for full discussion.

Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate what the Lord Privy Seal has said, but he does not quite understand our point. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was asking was whether we could have an opportunity of debating the Defence White Paper before the Budget. If we are to have that, it is really urgent that the Defence White Paper should be published next week.

Mr. Butler: That undertaking I cannot give, but I give an undertaking that the Defence White Paper will be published before the Budget.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the changing situation in Cyprus, and the possibility that we may have missed yet another opportunity of settling the problems of the island, do the Government intend to provide time in the near future for a discussion of the Cyprus question?

Mr. Butler: I think that we had better wait and see how the international aspect of this latest initiative works out before coming to a decision on that point.

Mr. J. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, as it is quite clear that we shall have to discuss our association with the Common Market in one form or another, he will


make available to hon. Members as a White Paper, or put in the Library of the House, a copy of the treaty which. I understand, has been concluded?

Mr. Butler: I think that all information on this vital subject should be available, because one great advantage of the project up to date has been the general support given to it throughout the country. Everyone realises that unless we take advantage of something of this sort we shall be faced with great competition in future years which will affect all of us and all the workpeople in this country. Therefore, I shall see that any information which is available is made available to hon. Members.

Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the publication of the Defence White Paper, will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that similar considerations apply to the Economic Survey? Will he bear in mind that in previous years—certainly, in the days of Sir Stafford Cripps—the House used to have the opportunity of a full debate on the Economic Survey before the Budget and that the opportunity of doing that is as valuable and as relevant to our Budget debates as debate on the Defence White Paper? Is there any hope of reverting to that practice?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I rather think that the practice in recent years has been that we publish the Economic Survey before the Budget and then have a general debate on the Budget which, as the hon. Member knows, occupies a great deal of our time. I think that we would prefer to adhere to that proposal rather than to have a separate debate on economics before the Budget is introduced.

Mr. Fell: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the reception which the industrial Free Trade Area is given by the country will depend very much on what exactly the proposals are. That being so, may we have the earliest possible statement on the details of those proposals and the earliest possible debate on the proposals?

Mr. Butler: I realise that there is a great deal of interest in this matter which, after all, will affect a great many of our industries very intimately, I cannot give an undertaking today about a debate, but I will pass on the observations of my hon. Friend to the Ministers chiefly concerned.

Mr. Donnelly: May I press the point made about Cyprus? The Easter Recess is within the foreseeable future and a lot of time will be taken up by the Budget. Yet the House has a considerable responsibility in this matter. Will the Lord Privy Seal consider whether, during the week after next, there will have been time to form an idea of what has happened about the international representations and for the House to have an opportunity to discuss the question of Cyprus?

Mr. Butler: I will take note of the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Mr. Lipton: Is it absolutely essential to have the Third Reading of the Rent Bill next Thursday immediately following a two-day Report stage? Would it not be advisable, in view of the changes that we hope may be made in the Bill on Report, to give the House and the country an opportunity of considering what we hope may be a very much improved Bill?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is our intention to take the Third Reading of the Rent Bill on Thursday, and the sooner we pass it into law the better.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of his hon. Friends are directors of property companies and are property owners and will make very much money out of the Bill? Will he therefore advise those hon. Friends of his to declare their interest before they vote on the Rent Bill and also say how much money they will make out of the Bill?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Amory.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL REVIEW)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the statutory annual review of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry which has now been concluded.
The Government have made their determinations on the guarantees to the industry in the light of the review and of the long-term assurances announced last November. The details are set out in a White Paper which is now available.
The general production policy of the Government continues to be to foster economic production, by encouraging the maintenance of a large arable acreage with the main emphasis on feed crops, the maintenance of a large livestock population with greater reliance on home-produced feeding stuffs, the production of more good quality beef, and lamb, but no more milk, eggs, pigmeat or wheat.
The net output of the industry in 1956–57 is forecast at 59 per cent. above pre-war as compared with the revised figure of 56 per cent. for last year, largely as a result of a rise in output of livestock products. This is the highest level of net output so far recorded. I am sure that the House will agree that this reflects credit on everyone concerned, particularly when one recalls the difficulties of the harvest.
The actual net income of the industry, which is forecast for 1956–57 at £317 million out of a gross income of nearly £1,500 million, is slightly below the revised figure of £325 million for 1955–56. The forecast of net income adjusted for normal weather conditions, on the other hand, at £334 million, is about equal to the highest previously recorded, in 1952–53.
There has been a substantial further increase in costs, of about £38 million in a full year for review commodities. Although there will be a considerable offset in continuing improvements in the efficiency of the industry, on balance the industry requires an increase in the value of the guarantees if it is to continue to make its proper contribution to the economy.
On the other hand, the Exchequer cost of agricultural support is rising and the national economic situation demands a strict view of the needs of the industry. The new long-term assurances to which the Government have undertaken to give effect require this year an increase in the total value of the guarantees. The Government have considered all relevant factors, including these assurances, the cost to the taxpayer and the place of the industry in the national economy. They have decided that the essential needs of the industry can be met by an increase in the total value of the guarantees of about £14 million. This is about £6 million above the minimum required by the long-term assurances.
The determinations now made are for livestock products for the year April, 1957, to March, 1958, and for crops of the 1957 harvest. The most important aims of the determinations for individual commodities and production grants have had to be to reduce the profitability of egg and milk production, to maintain that of fat cattle and fat sheep production, to encourage continued stability in output of pigmeat and to encourage production of home-grown feeding stuffs.
The determinations for livestock and livestock products accordingly comprise a substantial reduction in the price guarantees for eggs; an increase of no more than ¼d, a gallon in the guarantee for milk—which, in view of the increased costs, will mean a net reduction in profitability per gallon; no change in the price guarantees for pigs and wool; but increases in the price guarantees for fat cattle and fat sheep, including a higher rate of guarantee for the better quality cattle.
The determinations for crops include and supersede those previously made after the 1956 Annual Review under previous procedure. They comprise reductions in the price guarantees for wheat and rye and increases in those for barley, oats, potatoes and sugar beet. It has also been decided to increase the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers and to make minor extensions in the scope of the ploughing grants and the lime subsidy.
The Government are satisfied that the determinations now made will enable the industry to maintain its progress in improving efficiency and to secure a


reasonable level of remuneration for economic production, and, at the same time, accord with the present stringent requirements of the national economy.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman first, whether, as I hope is the case, this was a happily agreed decision? I think the right hon. Gentleman said that the increased costs of production amounted to £38 million in the year, of which £14 million are to be recouped. I assume that we take it from this statement that the industry is expected to bear £24 million worth of the increased costs over the year. Secondly, will the Minister say what is the "substantial reduction" in the price for eggs? Thirdly, can he tell us how much of the £38 million increased costs are due to increased fuel prices?

Mr. Amory: I am glad to say that the determinations have been agreed with the leaders of the farmers' unions. In the light of the national considerations at the present time, the leaders of the farmers' unions have agreed that the Government's determinations give due weight to the relevant factors at this Review and are in full accord with the Government's long-term assurances.
The cost increases for Review commodities amount to about £38 million. An addition of £14 million has been made to the guarantees, which leaves a net figure of £24 million, as the right hon. Gentleman says, but a substantial part of that figure has been absorbed already in the net income of the industry. As for the remainder, we believe that to be more than fully covered by the normal increase in efficiency in the industry, which we estimate at about £25 million a year and which, I am glad to say, looks like continuing.
The reduction in the figure for eggs is 1¾d. per dozen.
On the question of fuel prices, I think that the figure is about £4½ million, represented by the tax increase and something additional for other increases. We hope that the tax increase will be of a temporary nature.

Sir R. Boothby: While congratulating my right hon. Friend upon the general result achieved, and also upon the specific changes he has made, particularly the increased guarantees for fat cattle of good

quality and for barley and oats, may I ask him whether he thinks that these annual bouts of horse trading between his Department and the National Farmers' Unions, of which the House knows nothing until the final bargain is announced, will prove in the long run the best way of conducting the agricultural policy of the country? Will he give his mind to devising a better method in the future than this regular wrangle which takes place—I admit, usually with fairly satisfactory results—in order to get a long-term policy which will suit the needs of the country better?

Mr. Amory: I could not accept my hon. Friend's description of the Annual Price Review. I ant glad to say that it was held in a very friendly atmosphere this year. I think I can say that as a result of the long-term assurances the field for argument and discussion has proved, as I hoped, to be considerably narrowed, but as the hon. Member knows, the Annual Review is at present a statutory provision under the Agriculture Act.

Mr. Dye: Is it not the case that a year ago the right hon. Gentleman guaranteed that the price of the 1957 wheat crop should be 28s. 3d. a cwt. on average throughout the year? Do I understand him to say today that he is reducing that figure after the crop has been drilled? If so, is not this the first time that any Government have dishonoured a guarantee in respect of any agricultural crop?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the price of milk? Is he aware that for January this year the producer received 8d. a gallon less than for January of last year, but that the consumer is charged more? Are we to understand that there is a further reduction in the average price of milk, but that the price to the consumer may be still further increased?

Mr. Amory: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the results are the opposite to what he thinks. At our last Price Review we reduced the price of wheat for the 1957 harvest by 1s. 6d. At this Review we have put it up 4d. on that, making a net reduction of 1s. 2d.
As to the second part of his question, as the hon. Member knows, the guaranteed price is related to a standard quantity only, and above that standard quantity


the main part of the loss that results, unfortunately, from the sale of milk at a considerably reduced price falls, and is bound to fall, on the producer.

Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this Review carries forward the Government's policy of assisting the small producer by way of production grants, and so on, and to improve their efficiency and economy so that, over all, the industry will progressively need less subsidy? Will he also tell us whether the price arrangements now made will result in any increase in prices to consumers in the shops?

Mr. Amory: We bear particularly in mind the position of the small farmer, who is quite heavily dependent, in many cases, on pigs, eggs and milk. As my hon. Friend will have noted, we have, in our determinations, increased the price of oats, beef and sheep, and we have increased the value of the fertiliser subsidy. We have maintained, we believe, the profitability on pigs. Part of the reason that led us to give the ¼d. extra on milk was consideration for the small producer, who must inevitably base his husbandry, in many cases, on the production of milk.
As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, which I understood to refer to the consumer, the increases which we have made in the guaranteed prices should not affect the consumer in any way directly at all, because the prices of the products in the shops depend on the market price and not on the guarantee price.

Mr. T. Williams: Since the most disturbing feature of the whole situation is the persistent increase year by year in the overall costs of production, apart from wages, may I ask the Minister whether his Department is looking into those persistently increasing costs of every kind, increases which help to capsize the best-run ship?

Mr. Amory: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, that continually rising prices bedevil a satisfactory answer to almost every problem. That is why the Government are giving such a high priority to once and for all dealing with the problem of inflation.

Mr. Baldwin: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend, having now dealt with a very substantial proportion of agricultural production, will now turn his attention to the horticultural industry, which has to stand the increased costs but does not get anything in the way of deficiency payments? Will he consider that, because it is a very important part of agriculture?

Mr. Amory: I hope that horticulture will benefit directly from the increase in the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Potash."]—made in this Review. Of the two, there are a good many grounds for saying that nitrogen is more important than potash, even to horticulture.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will bear in mind that, although none of their commodities are Review commodities, horticulturists have from time to time been able to benefit from production grants, fertiliser subsidies, and so forth? Is he aware that all growers are united in believing that the subsidy on potash is far more important than that on nitrogen? Finally, will he bear in mind that during the past year increased costs to growers have been particularly heavy owing to fuel price increases?

Mr. Amory: I must have an argument with my hon. and gallant Friend about the rival importance of potash and nitrogen fertilisers. As he knows, the main method of support for horticulture is through tariffs. I am very conscious of the considerable increase in cost—part of which, I hope, will be very temporary—which has fallen on the glasshouse section of this side of the industry owing to the increase in fuel costs over recent months.

Commander Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend, in concert with the President of the Board of Trade, review at the earliest opportunity the levels of the tariffs on horticultural produce at dates and times more nearly relating to the Annual Price Review that the agricultural side gets, so that the horticultural producers are not left out of whatever improvements in their conditions the Government can give them?

Mr. Amory: It is open at any time, of course, for the horticultural producers to put forward a claim for an increase in tariff protection. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that any claims that are put forward will always be sympathetically and very thoroughly considered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Edward Heath.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.6 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill derives very largely from the review of the working of the National Insurance scheme which was initiated by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ingleby. It would, perhaps, not be inappropriate if I began by saying how impressed all who have studied this very intricate subject have been by the care and skill which the noble Lord devoted over a considerable number of years to the efficient working of the scheme.
The review which he initiated, and from which this Bill in large measure derives, was undertaken with the help, and very largely through the medium of, the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the statutory body which, as the House knows, was set up under the original Act. The country owes a great deal to the former Chairman, Sir Will Spens, who served until the end of last year, and a number of whose reports have their conclusion in this Bill. I should like, if I may, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to say how grateful we are for the help given by the extremely busy men and women who are members of the Committee, and that we do welcome the new Chairman, the Provost of University College, London, Sir Ifor Evans.
I am afraid that any Bill on National Insurance must inevitably, in present circumstances, present a highly untidy, and, if I may say so, almost incomprehensible appearance. That is the inevitable price which we pay for the fact that legislation is, I think rightly, required for the making of substantial changes in a scheme which is still a very new one, and which is an immense one covering the whole of the country.
Most of the proposals contained in this Bill result from practical experience of the working of the scheme. Therefore, I am afraid that National Insurance legislation still has to present a form which is


to lawyers, perhaps, particularly disagreeable—that of legislation by reference. That is because we are still engaged, in substance as well as in form, in amending and adjusting in the light of experience the original Act and those immediately following it. Although the time may come when it is possible to consolidate this legislation, I think that that time is probably still some way off, because there are still obviously adjustments which will have to be made from time to time in the scheme, and which involve legislation.
I should also like to say that while this Bill embodies a good deal of the advice given to us by the Advisory Committee, and though it contains, in a number of cases, also the decisions of the Government upon it, it does not cover the whole of the advice of the Advisory Committee which we are accepting. In other directions, where we are able to proceed by regulation, regulations are being prepared and submitted through the Advisory Committee to Parliament in the normal way.
The Bill itself covers a variety of topics. Indeed, there is an inevitable risk in connection with Bills of this kind that a Second Reading speech will consist solely of a consolidation of the notes on Clauses, a speech which it would be as tedious to deliver as it would be insupportable to listen to. I will, therefore, if I may, confine myself to referring to sonic of the main features of the Bill, leaving to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the responsibility for dealing at the end of the debate with specific points which hon. or right hon. Gentlemen may care to raise.
Plainly, there emerge from the considerable mass of proposals in the Bill three which are of greater importance than the rest. They are those providing for retired persons to go back into employment and earn increments, which are dealt with in Clause 1 and, to some extent, in Clause 2, those dealing with an increase in the earnings limit for dependent wives, in Clause 3, and the provision for a change in the law with respect to unemployment benefit in connection with certain short-time workers, which is dealt with in Clause 4. I will, if I may, confine the greater part, though not all, of what I have to say to those three topics.
In Clause 1 we deal with—I apologise to the House for the word—" de-retirement ". It is an inelegant word which, when I first used it in this House, produced a highly adverse reaction from both sides; but subsequent study has convinced me that, though the word is inelegant, there is no alternative word which precisely expresses what we here have in mind. I have attempted to elicit suggestions from other quarters, but have been wholly unsuccessful.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would it be a suitable alternative to call it "resurrection"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The theological implications of that word might, perhaps, cause a certain confusion in lay minds. I was about to say that only the fact that the House of Commons Disqualification Bill is going through Parliament prevents me from offering a prize this afternoon; though I am sure that no hon. Member would be displaced from his seat in the House if during the course of the debate —I mean this seriously—he were to offer further suggestions for suitable nomenclature.
The idea is important, and it is an idea which, I think, commends itself to opinion generally. The present position is that there is, of course, nothing to prevent the retirement pensioner when he has retired from ordinary work resuming full-time work, but, if he does so during the first five years from 65 to 70 in the case of a man—or 60 to 65 of a woman—he forfeits under the earnings rule his pension and does not obtain by way of compensation an increment on his pension when he stops work. Putting it quite frankly, he therefore gets the worst of both worlds.
The difficulty which experience has shown springs from the fact that the decision to retire is, under the present law, an irrevocable one. It is the common experience of hon. Members, in their own lives and contacts, to meet people who, not being very well perhaps or being a little tired, have retired from regular work and gone on pension at or soon after reaching pensionable age, but who, after a few months, have changed their ideas; they became rested, they perhaps feel better, they may perhaps be a little bored by the absence of regular work, or there may even be domestic factors such as the wife's enthusiasm for having the "old


man" at home all day being not restrainable within the limits of decorum—there may be many human factors. Therefore, we want to give an opportunity for such a person not to be bound by an irrevocable decision to retire.
What is proposed in Clause 1, and there is a consequential provision in Clause 2, is to give to such people the option to revert to their previous position, that is to say, not to draw the pension but to earn increments or increased increments so that when they finally retire they will enjoy an incremented pension.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby): Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? A person who retires and who then may undertake full-time employment and be caught by the earnings rule is presumably not paying contributions when at work again whereas the reentry into employment under this Clause would, as I understand it, entail the payment of contributions. Is that difference a real one?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, undoubtedly a re-entrant under this condition, in order to earn increments, would pay the full contribution. After all, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the increment is calculated on the assumption that contributions are paid.

Mr. Houghton: I have worked out, though my arithmetic may be wrong, that if a pensioner re-enters employment for six months it will take him fourteen years to make good his loss of benefit and the cost of the contributions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would never dispute the hon. Gentleman's mathematics, for which I have a profound respect, without an opportunity to recalculate the figure. On the other hand, I know his skill in debate sufficiently well never to accept any proposition he puts without further study.
The fact remains, of course, that what we are offering here is an option. There is no compulsion about it. If any person is interested—I shall come in a moment to the categories of people who, I think, may be interested—the option will be available for him. If people are not interested, there is nothing whatever to compel them to exercise the option. It is

an additional right, not a diminution of any right. As regards the hon. Gentleman's calculations, as I say, I reserve my position, meaning, in other words, that I shall put cold towels on my head and take some black coffee later tonight.
The proposal is to give an option. Those to whom it is most likely to appeal are those—of whom there are 25,000 at the moment—who have retired and have subsequently resumed full-time work, losing the whole of their pension under the earnings limit. Some of those 25,000 people will, no doubt, be interested. It may well be that others also who, though not losing the whole pension under the earnings rule, are losing something, may be interested.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention has really led me to one point which I was going to discuss. Until this has operated, we cannot know how much it will be used or the extent of the interest it will prove to have. That has a bearing on one of the two problems which must be solved, namely, the problem of whether we are to permit simply one act of de-retirement, and, if the pensioner thereafter retires a second time, not allow him a further option, or whether we should go further than that and allow not one, but a number. It must, inevitably, be limited in some degree, but a number of further de-retirements could be envisaged.
I would suggest that the best way to handle the matter is this. As hon. Members will see, the Clause is drafted on the basis of conferring a regulation-making power. What I would propose to do would be to make regulations, in the first instance, providing one opportunity for de-retirement, but with the full intention, after having seen how that works, of providing, if it seems desirable, for further de-retirements by subsequent regulations. That experimental method, which is one which has been followed more than once in connection with the National Insurance scheme, is probably the wisest; and, of course, the extent to which it is possible to operate it depends upon the factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) as to the extent to which it is used.
The other problem is this. If a man "de-retires", that will affect his wife's


pension if it is payable on his insurance. The National Insurance Advisory Committee, in facing that problem, recommended that the act of de-retirement should be a joint one in the case of married couples where the wife was drawing pension on her husband's insurance. That, in practice, of course, would involve, as it were, a veto in the hands of the wife; but in the vast majority of cases that would not matter because this is just the kind of thing a married couple would talk over together and come to a joint decision about.
There may well be a minority of cases, however, where, perhaps, a couple have quarrelled and separated, in which the wife's consent might be withheld for inadequate reasons. Therefore, in the Bill, as will be seen from the proviso to Clause 1 (1), we have gone a little further than the Advisory Committee and, while proposing that the act of deretirement shall be a joint act, we have said that there shall be an opportunity to go to the statutory authorities if in the husband's view the wife's consent is unreasonably withheld. The statutory authorities—that is, the local insurance officer or the local tribunal—will have the opportunity to decide the matter. That seems to be the fairest way of dealing with that difficulty, which could arise in only a small number of cases but which, it appears, could arise in them.
Clause 2, as I have said, follows on from Clause 1, because its most important provision is to open this same opportunity to widows who up to the age of 60 have been on widow's pension. The Clause provides that they also shall have the opportunity, if they wish, instead of automatically going on to a retirement pension, to earn increments and draw, therefore, the higher pension at a later date. This treatment of them is to place them in the same position as other retirement pensioners. That is the first of the three major points to which I referred a moment ago.
The second, which I can deal with more briefly and which is covered in Clause 3, relates to the earnings limit—or, to put it more accurately, the earnings disregard—for dependent wives of National Insurance beneficiaries. The House will recall that this matter was dealt with by the Advisory Committee in its Report on the Question of Earnings

Limits for Benefits, published early last summer, and that the other earnings limits—those relating to retirement pensioners and widowed mothers—were dealt with in a Private Member's Bill, now a Private Member's Act, which was taken through the House by my hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). That Bill, however, did not deal with the position of dependent wives.
The National Insurance Advisory Committee considered the previous position, in which wives of very long-term chronic sickness beneficiaries had a limit of 40s., whereas wives of recipients of unemployment benefit or of sickness benefit for shorter periods had a limit of 20s. After considering the matter, the Advisory Committee recommended, and we have accepted its recommendation, that there was really no case for a differentiation between the two and that the limit in both cases should be 40s. That, among other things, will involve doing away with what has been a cause of some difficulty.
The higher limit in respect of long-term sickness has been available where the man's doctor has been prepared to make a confident prophesy that he would be sick for six months or more, but where the doctor gave a less determined prognosis, though the illness itself might continue just as long, the 20s. limit applied. That, as hon. Members with experience of National Insurance administration will know, has caused a great deal of difficulty. That difficulty will be eliminated if the House accepts the view of the Advisory Committee and of the Government that the limit should be 40s. in both instances.
As I have said, this is not a true earnings limit in the sense in which we discussed the earnings limit last summer when dealing with the Private Member's Bill to which I have referred. This is much more a test of dependency, a test whether the wife is dependent on the recipient of National Insurance benefit and, therefore, whether the increase in respect of a dependant should be paid in respect of her. For that reason, it is, and always has been, framed differently: that is, with no marginal adjustments but so that, once her earnings exceed the limit, even by a shilling or two, she ceases to be treated as a dependant at all.
This is financially much the most expensive part of the Bill. The cost to the two funds—the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund—will be over £1½million a year to the National Insurance Fund and £¼ million to the Industrial Injuries Fund. That cost, of course, will have to be taken into account in due course when the level of contributions is reconsidered.
The third major change relates to the payment of unemployment benefit in respect of short-time working. That matter was considered by the Advisory Committee a little time ago and that Committee, being divided on the matter, came to no conclusion on this issue. This proposal is, therefore, put forward in the light of the Advisory Committee's consideration but after consideration by the Government and on the basis of the Government's consideration of the merits of the matter. It has been subject to criticism from both directions. It has been criticised for doing anything at all, and it has also been criticised, noticeably in the Press, for not having gone further. That is probably a good indication that the proposal is about in the right place.
Perhaps I may describe it. Essentially, it has to take into account the growth of the five-day week, which now covers, roughly, about half the insured workers and, of course, a much larger proportion in manufacturing industry. The present position when such a five-day worker goes on short time is that if he or she loses one day's work of his five days he is entitled, if he fulfils the other conditions with regard to waiting days and so on, to two days' unemployment benefit, whereas a six-day-week worker who loses one day is in general, unless he can link it with another day, entitled to no benefit at all.
That seems to us to be an anomaly. It seems to be wrong in principle that unemployment benefit should be paid to a man in respect of a day—normally, but not necessarily, a Saturday—on which he does not normally work and in the ordinary way of things would not be working. That has been thought in many directions to be an anomaly. Therefore, the Bill proposes simply to correct that and to provide, by a Clause which is easy and intelligible to read, that benefit shall

not be payable in respect of unemployment on a day on which the man in question does not normally work.
That is the proposal. We may have discussion of it later, but I think it will suffice for me at this stage to say that it does not seem fair to place on the other contributors to the Fund responsibility for the payment of unemployment benefit in respect of a day on which the recipient does not normally work.
I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to indicate why we have not gone further in this direction, except, perhaps, to say this. It has been suggested that we should have gone further and gone back to the old three-in-six rule, which prevailed up to 1940. One great objection, it seems to me, to the three-in-six rule is that it means that a man who is out, in the case of a six-day worker, for three days gets half a week's benefit, whereas a man who is out for two days gets none at all. Undue importance is attached to the odd day which may have a discouraging effect in certain circumstances on production. We have, therefore, rejected that and confined ourselves to the proposal which I have been attempting to outline.
I should make it clear that it applies only to those who normally work for five days or less a week and that it does not apply in any respect to the six-day or 5½-day worker. Neither does it apply to the five-day worker when he is unemployed for the whole of the week. It operates only in respect of short time.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are, perhaps, of less general interest, though each and all of them matter quite substantially to limited numbers of people who will be affected by them. I might, perhaps, mention the new benefit which is created by Clause 5 and is called the child's special allowance.
That benefit originates from a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce and has been approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Indeed, we go a little further than the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission took into account the position which arises where there is a divorced couple and where the children are living with the mother who is receiving payment for their maintenance from the father. Under the existing law, when


the father dies no National Insurance benefits are paid. Although the position of these children is perhaps broadly similar to that of the children of a widowed mother, no National Insurance provision is made for them.
We therefore propose—and we go further than the Royal Commission, which recommended this only in respect of cases where the parent was the innocent party to the divorce proceedings—that this should apply in cases where the person in charge of the children was either the innocent or the guilty party. I think that is right, because it is the child's interests that we are concerned with here. We propose that where payments have been made by the divorced husband in respect of the children over a reasonable period before his death, the payment shall be made up to a maximum equivalent to the child element in the widowed mother's allowance, that is 16s. 6d. for the eldest child and 8s. 6d. plus family allowances for the subsequent children, and up to the maximum of the amount that the husband was contributing before his death. That is a new benefit which will affect a very limited number of people but which will, on the other hand, within that limited number, deal with cases of very real hardship.
There are some provisions in Clause 6 with which I will not weary the House at this stage—no doubt we shall discuss them later—relating to children. I might, however, mention the variation made in Clause 6 in respect of the payment of guardian's allowance. As hon. Members know, the guardian's allowance is paid in respect of orphans who are taken into the families of other people. A difficulty has arisen in the case where there are step-parents. When the National Insurance Act was passed, step-parents had a liability for the support of their step-children. Therefore, the original Act—in my view quite rightly —provided that the existence of a stepparent should be a bar to the payment of guardian's allowance.
Since then, subsequent legislation swept away the legal liability of the step-parent to maintain his step-children. One such case was drawn to my attention by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) a little while ago, where the existence of the step-mother, who had

never seen the child, provided a complete bar to the payment of the guardian's allowance to the child's grandparents who were looking after it. That will be dealt with. I have gone into it in detail, because it is a good example of the practical problems that have arisen over recent years in the operation of the scheme and which it is the object of this Bill to solve.
I think that I have given some idea of the general scope and purpose of the Bill, although I have not, for reasons which I gave in opening, sought to deal with each and every separate point that may arise. The main purpose of the Bill, as I have said, is to adjust and iron out difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the scheme. I do not suggest to the House that it is one of the great Measures of the Session or a Measure of major policy, but I do suggest that it is a useful but modest Measure for making necessary adjustments to deal with various difficulties that have arisen in our very intricate National Insurance scheme.
I am told that if the House accepts and passes the Bill it will benefit in their very different ways about 250,000 people. It is, therefore, not a wholly insignificant Measure. I think that it is a useful one. I think that it swill make our great National Insurance scheme work more smoothly and more fairly and, for that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am sure that we all agree with the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks that his predecessor Lord Ingleby was a very careful administrator of the provisions of the National Insurance Acts. We may not always have agreed with him on policy, but we gladly pay tribute to his care as an administrator. We should like also to pay tribute to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, whose various recommendations, although not all of them, unfortunately, will be implemented when this Bill becomes an Act.
The right hon. Gentleman used about his own Bill the words "untidy" and "incomprehensible".

Mr. Houghton: What was stranger still was that the right hon. Gentleman called it "modest".

Mr. Marquand: It is not for me to say anything stronger than that. This Bill is undoubtedly difficult in detail to understand. When reading through it, one becomes baffled occasionally and turns back to the Explanatory Memorandum in the hope that what one reads in the Clause really does carry through what is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum. These things we shall have to examine in Committee. I think that the difficulty of understanding the Bill in detail illustrates the complexity of the whole National Insurance scheme.
We all from time to time in our contacts with our constituents come up against what appear to be anomalies and against situations in which constituents had understood that there was a universal comprehensive National Insurance system which would provide them, in certain eventualities, with certain definite benefits who had then discovered that somehow or another they had not qualified for the benefits and were upset about it.
In one case, which the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember, his officers advised one of my constituents to pay contributions after widowhood in the hope of getting an insurance pension. She regularly paid the contribution, as she had been advised by his own officials, and it was found later that she could never pay sufficient contributions to qualify for the benefit and the right hon. Gentleman had to return the money to her. I am not complaining that anything unjust or illegal was done in that case, but that is the kind of case which comes forward fairly often and it is necessary to have a tidying up by a succession of amending Acts. The Minister said that the time for consolidation has not yet arrived, but there ought to have been brought forward now a more thorough and comprehensive review of the working of the whole system than we have had. We were disappointed at the hurried way in which the promise to have a review at the end of five years was only partially fulfilled by the late Government.

Mr. J. T. Price: While dealing with that aspect of the matter, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it seems to me at least high time that we not only had tidyings-up, such as the one we are being offered today and to which I take no exception, but also an investiga-

tion into the much wider question of the tremendous volume of case law in the form of the Commissioner's decisions, which are becoming completely incomprehensible to those who have to administer the Acts and benefits. That seems to call for very wide review at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Marquand: I dare say my hon. Friend is right. I am not a great expert on the Commissioner's decisions, although I know that there are several volumes of them. I hope that if he succeeds in catching the eye of Mr. Speaker, he may have an opportunity to develop that point.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Bill has, I think, clarified our understanding of it. It is, nonetheless, a little difficult when immediately following such an explanation to talk off the cuff, as it were, about the details of the Bill. We shall read what he said today quite carefully before we come to the Committee stage, and even when we have reached it I am certain that my hon. Friends and I will have many points of detail which we shall want to explore in Committee.
Broadly, in so far as the Bill implements the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, we are in agreement with it. We need to examine it in detail, but broadly we accept the implementation, in many of the Clauses of the Bill, of the recommendations of that Committee. Clause 1 is based on the recommendations in Cmd. 9752, the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the Question of Earnings Limits for Benefits. The principal recommendation concerning the size of the earnings limits was agreed to last year, and the Clause is designed to implement the second recommendation in the Report. We recognise that that will be an improvement.
The form of the Clause, however, seems to give extremely wide powers to the Minister. The person who elects to return to employment, having previously retired, may do so in accordance with "such conditions as may be prescribed." The regulations which have to be made may make
such modifications of the principal Act or this Act … as may appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient …


These are very wide regulatory powers when they permit the Minister to make modifications of the very Bill under which they are made. I hope that when we discuss in Committee that subsection of Clause 1 which concerns these regulations, we shall have the opportunity of having a fuller explanation of what is in the Minister's mind about the regulations before they are made.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman said that regulations of this kind are put before the National Insurance Advisory Committee for its consideration before they are promulgated, but on this occasion, when the Bill is in Committee, we shall ask to consider whether it is proper that the right hon. Gentleman should have such wide powers to make regulations. Although, eventually, the regulations may go before the Advisory Committee, I think we undoubtedly feel that a Committee of the House of Commons should have a better idea, before it approves of the proposal, how wide these regulations will be.
As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, two main questions are raised by the Clause. I recognise that the Clause will undoubtedly carry out the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. That Committee suggested that, in the first instance, the right to elect to de-retire should be granted once only, but it went on to say that powers should be taken to provide for more frequent elections to de-retire. I was glad to hear the Minister say today that he had in mind to give a second or possibly even more than a second opportunity so to elect, in the light of experience to come of the working of this first proposal. That coincides exactly with what the Advisory Committee said, and I doubt very much whether anyone will wish to object to it.
The other principal point arises on the question of de-retirement where the wife is drawing a pension in her own right, given to her as her own pension. It is whether, when the man retires, he should be able to elect to deretire on his own or whether he should have his wife's consent. In the event of dispute, experience suggests that each partner will think the other unreasonable. If a dispute arises between the couple in these circumstances, the wife may think it unreasonable or unwise for her husband to go

back to work. If she refuses her consent, he undoubtedly will think her unreasonable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is glad that the framework which we have arranged for National Insurance means that these matters will be decided by statutory bodies and not by the Minister. In matters pertaining to the Royal Warrant he has to make a decision on his own. I am sure that he is glad that that is not so in this case.
Accepting the Minister's assurance that it fulfils the Explanatory Memorandum, I have no criticism to make of Clause 2. Equally, in respect of Clauses 3, 5 and 6, which implement the recommendations of the Advisory Committee's Report on the Question of Dependency Provisions in Cmd. 9855. We welcome the acceptance of the recommendations and their implementation. It is interesting to hear that the major cost of the various improvements for beneficiaries under the Bill arises here. It is also interesting to note that the recommendations of the Committee are accepted, as far as we can see, in full except for a few minor ones concerning staying in hospital and the like. I assume that those recommendations are omitted from the Bill not because they are not accepted, but because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they could he put into force by regulations without necessitating amending legislation.
The Advisory Committee made several recommendations of that kind. Recommendations 3 and 4 of the Report are not referred to in the Bill. We presume that they are either not accepted or are to be put into operation through the legislative powers which already exist. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is to reply to my hon. Friends' questions, I hope that she will consider these points. I refer in particular to page 29 of Cmd. 9855 and recommendations 3 and 4. These recommendations do not appear in the Bill. I freely confess that I could not quite understand why, or what had become of them.
Clause 5 certainly seems a considerable improvement on the existing situation. It is clearly a great improvement in the condition of certain children that on the death of the father of the child the divorced woman may continue to receive for the child what the father paid. This is subject to a maximum amount. In


reading that maximum in the Bill, one is reminded of what I consider to be, and have described on more than one occasion, the inadequacy of present rates of allowances for children all the way through our system of National Insurance and of National Assistance.
I do not consider these allowances at their present level to be sufficient, despite all the arguments that the members of a family living together can live more cheaply than the same number of individuals living separately. I do not think any of the dependants' allowances for children in any part of our system of National Insurance and National Assistance are satisfactory. One is forcibly reminded of that fact by the maximum of 16s. 6d. laid down in this Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We can argue on another occasion the matter of the adequacy of these figures, but I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute the line taken in the Bill, that the maximum here should be the same as that for the child element in the general provisions for the widowed mother's allowance?

Mr. Marquand: No, certainly not. I was merely saying that in passing. I am not criticising that provision in particular in this Bill. Evidently this allowance must be at the same rate as the others. There would be little case for claiming any differential treatment here.
I thought, too, that Clause 6 was very much to be welcomed and that the spirit of acceptance of the Advisory Committee's recommendation was a good one. Clause 7 also seemed to me to constitute a welcome improvement.
I have gone through all those Clauses rapidly because I do not wish to take up too much time on this Bill, the greater part of which is non-contentious. I have deliberately left to the end what I have to say about Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of Clause 4, referred to difference of opinion among persons unspecified about what should be done about unemployment benefit received by short-time workers, and said that he felt that his proposal lay midway between differing points of view and were, therefore, about right. I do not know whom it may have been he was thinking of when referring to the difference of

opinion, or what people may hold these opinions——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What I had in mind was the opinion represented in a very interesting leading article in The Times on the day following publication of the Bill. I think it was called "A Half Measure".

Mr. Marquand: I had better refresh my memory of that before we go into Committee on the Bill. It was certainly not the opinion of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee made no recommendation on this. The rest of the Bill fulfils recommendations of the Advisory Committee. This Clause does not. It is the Government's own policy, and it is not backed by the Advisory Committee.
As long ago as 1953, the then Minister presented to us the Report of the Advisory Committee on "The Availability Question". In the paragraph headed "Five-days a week worker", the Committee said:
Under the present regulations a five-days a week worker is not ordinarily entitled to unemployment benefit in respect of his usual idle day, but if he is unemployed for one of the five days on which he normally works, he is entitled to benefit in respect of this day and also in respect of the day on which he is usually idle. We have considered the possibility of an alteration to the regulations, but since two days is the minimum period provided in the Act in respect of which unemployment benefit is payable, all that could be effected by a change would be to deprive a five-days a week worker who worked on only four day, in the week of title to any unemployment benefit in respect of the day lost.
The Advisory Committee in that Report dismissed the suggestion that anything be done about this.
It presented another Report in November, 1955, on "Benefit for very short spells of unemployment or sickness," and in that it said:
As things now stand, we find ourselves almost equally divided as to whether or not there should be an extension of the full normal extent rule by providing that unemployment benefit should never be paid for a day on which a person does not normally work.
The members of the Advisory Committee were divided. There was some difference of opinion, though I do not know who held which opinion in that Committee. However, although there was a difference of opinion as to whether any change


not a particular change, but any change —was required the members of the Committee said:
We are agreed, however, that where an existing right to benefit is at issue, we should not recommend its removal save by a substantial majority of opinion. Accordingly we do not recommend any departure from the present provisions
There is a principle laid down unanimously by the Advisory Committee, that where an existing right to benefit is at issue we should not recommend its removal save by a substantial majority of opinion, and the Minister treads on very dangerous ground, I think, when he departs from that principle, which was agreed by his own Advisory Committee. Why, in the light of that feeling of the Advisory Committee, why, in the light of that very reasonable principle that we should not deprive people of something they have already got unless there is a substantial majority of opinion behind the proposal, does he now introduce this proposal?
He spent very little time on this Clause. I must warn him that we shall have to spend a great deal more time on it before we dispose of it in Committee. He did not tell us what is the size of the problem. If there is some large new problem arising to very grievous dimensions, and if he feels everybody is not aware of it and that he ought to bring our attention to it, why did he not tell us so, and why did he not tell us the size of it?
How large will be the saving to the National Insurance Fund by this proposal? He did not say. We know from the Explanatory Memorandum that some unspecified saving may be expected, because we are told that the increased expenditure arising from other, good Clauses of the Bill
will be likely to be in part offset by reduced expenditure on unemployment benefit.
How much is to be saved?
How many five-day weekers register when they are unemployed for the last two days of the week? If they do not register as unemployed the problem does not arise. They are unavailable for work; they have not registered; they do not qualify for benefit. How many five-day a week workers have been registering during a recent six months or twelve months? Is the number so sub-

stantial as to induce the Minister to feel that some new problem has arisen since the Advisory Committee made its Report in November, 1955? Unless he can say that, he has not a shadow of justification for depriving people of an existing right.

ROYAL ASSENT

4.49 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1957.
2. Homicide Act, 1957.
3. Public Trustee (Fees) Act, 1957.
4. Patents Act, 1957.
5. Northern Ireland (Compensation for Compulsory Purchase) Act, 1957.
6. Nurses Act, 1957.
7. Nurses Agencies Act, 1957.
8. Rating and Valuation Act, 1957.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I was saying that the Minister, in the proposals contained in Clause 4, is asking the House to deprive many persons of a right to benefit which they now possess and that he has not given us any estimate of the numbers of persons likely to be affected. We have yet to be convinced that there is any problem at all here, any problem of any dimensions that is to say. Even if there were a problem of dimensions, we should have views about the way the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to tackle it. We certainly want to hear from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if she can tell us, what the dimensions of the problem are supposed to be. How many persons are registered among this category of short-time workers, five-day week workers, or however they are described? Men who wish to claim unemployment benefit cannot do so unless they register; but even when they register they must satisfy the condition of being available for work.
That has been the accepted test for receiving unemployment benefit since


1935. Why has it become insufficient now? The trade unions, I know, have no objection whatever to applying the test of availability for unemployment benefit. They accept that well-established method of determining whether benefits should be paid and see no reason in present circumstances for any change in that situation. They see no abuse of any dimension likely to develop. In any case, they certainly do not agree to be deprived of benefit in this way unless it can be shown that the availability regulations are not a completely satisfactory way of preventing any injustice or collusion taking place.
The Government are asking power to declare that a man who normally does not work on one working day per week when employment is good shall be deemed to be not available for work on that day when times are bad, even when he is unemployed and has proved unemployment by registering. How are the Government to ascertain whether, to quote the words of the Bill, "in the normal course" a man would not work? How are they to know who these people are who "in the normal course" would not work on a particular day in the week? Who is to tell them? How are they to find out? Can they expect the individuals to tell them? Are they going to make inquiries of all the employers in the country? Are they to make some assumption based on general knowledge of existing agreements between employers and workers? Whichever way it is adopted, it seems to us that it will be administratively rather complex and administratively rather costly.
Has the Minister made an estimate of the extra administrative cost likely to be involved in applying the new regulation he proposes? Has the Ministry of Labour adequate staff in the offices which pay the benefit to find out in every detail exactly what is the position? Will there not be endless disputes between the individual concerned who is denied the benefit and the Department as to whether or not "in the normal course" he would not work on any particular day? We should like to know whether any estimate is being made, not merely of the size of the problem, but of the difficulties and costs likely to be involved in manpower in administering the proposed regulation.
Special regulations applicable to only one sort of labour are inevitably difficult to administer. They breed resentment because they discriminate. A discrimination is proposed here between the type of person who normally does not work on a certain day of the week and other types of worker. Other types are dealt with by the availability regulations and do not get the benefit if they are not available, but this type will not get the benefit because normally he does not work on one particular day. Discriminations of that kind breed resentment.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was doing this simply to correct an anomaly. I wonder if he realised the full significance of the word he used? I wonder if he realised what memories that word "anomaly" arouses among workpeople, especially among those old enough to remember the twenties and thirties? Trade unions undoubtedly fear that this attempt to correct a so-called anomaly—the size of which we do not know and are not told—will cause a return to the difficult, bitter and resentful days of the anomalies regulations which existed in the twenties and caused so much discontent and unhappiness. They feel, they tell us—and I am sure they have told the right hon. Gentleman —that it would be far better to rely on the broad, general and agreed rule of availability.
We dislike very much this proposed change in the existing rules, this proposed deprivation from benefit of people who at present have the right to receive it. We cannot fully understand why the Minister should feel—if he does feel—that it is in the general public interest to introduce such a regulation at this time. Is it because he believes there is some measure of collusion between employers and employed in trades where there is some diminution of employment, perhaps for the time being? Is it because in an industry where there is some diminution employers wish to hang on to the labour they have, fearing that otherwise it might disappear and that they fix up arrangements for shorter working weeks designed to give workpeople unemployment benefit and thereby keep them in the neighbourhood available for that industry at the time when its fortunes may improve?
It does not follow that every time there is a short-time working there is


a surplus of labour which ought to be dispersed and encouraged into other employment. There may be occasions, of course, when a genuine surplus of labour will develop. In such a situation, one would agree that special agreements designed to keep an unnecessary amount of labour attached to an industry would be against the public interest.
Certainly agreements which have the effect of keeping a certain amount of labour attached to the industry cannot always be of that type. There must be occasions in the short term where a temporary depression in the demand for the products of an industry reasonably justifies, in the national interest, that people should remain in the industry and regard themselves as employed by the industry, working part-time in the industry and waiting until times improve and they can work full-time.
The right hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the short and long terms. If he has evidence of the existence of what appear to be long periods of surplus labour attached to particular industries, and if the Government feel that such a surplus is against the national interest, the proper way to tackle the situation is not by a change in the unemployment regulations, thus depriving people of rights which others have and of rights which they have been enjoying for some time, causing bitterness, resentment, annoyance and a sense of grievance among trade unions and their leaders, but by having the Minister of Labour and not the Minister of National Insurance approach the employers and employed in the industry.
I am not saying that such a situation exists. If it does, then the Minister of Labour should approach employers and employed in such an industry and say, "The effect of the agreement which you have made between yourselves for a five-day week, or whatever it may be, in existing circumstances is resulting in a larger volume of labour being attached to your industry than can permanently find full-time work in it. In your own interests you ought to revise these agreements, or among yourselves agree on declarations of redundancy which will allow some of the workpeople to be free to find work elsewhere."
I could not cite an industry where a surplus of labour exists, but if such a

situation arose, or has arisen, then the proper approach is for the Minister of Labour to ask the employers and employees concerned to consider their agreements about short-time working and to modify them in the national interest. He should approach both sides together and put the point of view of the national interest before them. It should not be done by back-door methods by the Minister of National Insurance, so causing annoyance and resentment.
I know that some of my hon. Friends want to develop this topic and some have great experience of dealing with it as members and officials of trade unions. I shall say no more, except that although in general we like the Bill, we dislike Clause 4 very much indeed, and we shall seek in Committee to get rid of it if we can. If we cannot, we hope to persuade the Minister to modify it. I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should think again about this matter. He should give very careful consideration to the representations made to him by the Trades Union Congress.
We feel that we cannot divide the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, improves the condition of two million people. It makes substantial improvements for many people and we welcome it on that account, but we very much dislike the wholly unnecessary change in the present unemployment benefit regulations which it is proposed to make in Clause 4.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I should like to begin in the way the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) began and refer to the immense complications of the National Insurance scheme as we have it today. Certainly, the number of regulations and different cases which can arise are such as not only to fill the postbags of Members of Parliament, but also to cause a great deal of worry to people who try to obtain their rights under the scheme. Although I sincerely welcome the Bill, it seems to me that it may have the by-effect of making yet one more complication in a situation which already defeats the understanding of many people.
Whenever I try to talk in my constituency about National Insurance, the


evening invariably ends with a long discussion about the earnings rule and retirement and what retirement really means. That is not helped, unfortunately, by the fact that so many of us, without thinking, still talk about "old-age pensions" instead of "retirement pensions." I hope that the extra complication which Clause 1 and Clause 2 bring into the Bill will not cause more distress to people who are considering whether or not they should retire.
I presume that the aim of Clause 1 and Clause 2 is to encourage people to stay at full-time work as long as their health and their desire enable them to do so. I presume that this is upon two grounds: first, that we have an ageing population; and, secondly, that we want children to remain at school for longer than was the case in the past. It is, therefore, essential that we should all work for as long as our health enables us to do so and that we should give every encouragement in the National Insurance scheme towards prolonging our working life.
Apart from helping us to help ourselves with the pensions increments which can be earned, the Bill gives a chance to "de-retire"—I, too, could not think of an alternative to that word; I would that I could. I should like to welcome this proposal to help those who have retired, when in had health, not having fully realised what retirement was, or, in some cases, having retired at the minimum age, because they thought that was the only thing to do—and there are still such people in the country—to go back to work.
The Bill is an improvement in the National Insurance scheme and I am very glad that so many improvements which will affect people in the first five years of their potential retirement have come from a Conservative Government, particularly from my right hon. Friend the Minister. Although, in a Private Member's Measure, we increased earnings under the earnings rule from 40s. to 50s., we had the institution of the gradual deductions from the pension, instead of the total deduction, and we are now in a position whereby a man having retired within the first five years of his pensionable age can still earn up to £5 a week without finding that his pension is no good to him. Those who wish to earn more than £5 a week—and, after all, £5 a week is not

an enormous wage in these days—will find the de-retirement provisions of the Bill very useful.
While giving the Bill that welcome and bearing in mind its main purposes, it has not gone far enough. I do not think that having an earnings limit of 50s., and the possibility of de-retirement, will be enough to encourage people to stay at work after the minimum retirement age. If a person does stay at work after the minimum retirement age, and if the incentive for each complete year's extra work is to receive, when he finally retires, an extra 3s. a week for a single person and an extra 5s. a week for a married man, then, quite frankly, I do not regard that as being particularly attractive.
It is not at all attractive for anyone who can do simple arithmetic, and I do not pretend to be able to do the complicated kind of arithmetic which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has undoubtedly done in relation to this Bill. Let us take the case of a single employed male person who works from 65 to 70. During those five years, he will sacrifice 40s. a week retirement pension, a total of £520. He will have paid 6s. 9d. a week extra for five years in National Insurance contributions, which makes a total of £87 15s. The total of these two figures is £607 15s., which he has paid to or permitted to remain in the National Insurance Fund. Then, the man retires on a pension of 55s. a week.
Until he has lived and drawn this 55s. a week for 221 weeks, which is over four years, he will not have recouped the pension which he voluntarily relinquished and the extra contributions which he paid between the ages of 65 and 70. If we start doing one of these very complicated sums, whereby we consider the £2 a week he would have been drawing throughout the 221 weeks, we find that it is virtually impossible for anybody who does not become an octogenarian to make anything on this scheme by staying at work.
The position of a married man is as bad. He forgoes five years' pension at 65s. a week, a total of £845, and pays a further £87 15s. in National Insurance contributions, and then retires on a pension of 90s. a week. He has to live for over 207 weeks to recoup himself for the


pension which he voluntarily relinquished and the extra contributions he paid, whereas he would have got £2 a week during these 207 weeks anyway.
The same is true of the self-employed person, though his extra contributions are, of course, higher. They total, not £87 15s., but £109 18s. 4d. Therefore, if he is single, he has to draw an increased pension for 229 weeks, and if married for 212 weeks, to recoup himself for the pension which he voluntarily relinquished between the ages of 65 and 70 and the extra contributions which he paid during those years.
I apologise for wearying the House with these figures, but I believe that it is an essential part of this effort which we are all jointly making to encourage people to stay at work after the age of 65 that the increment should be raised from 3s. to 5s. and from 5s. to 7s. 6d. a week if it is to prove attractive financially to people to de-retire and take advantage of this Bill.
We have also to remember one other thing. The National Insurance retirement pension is not a living wage. It does not give a standard of living upon which anyone can be expected to live, and, thank God, no one is expected to live on it. This means that there is a wide range and a wide gap between the retirement pension level of 40s. a week and the total income of the person who does retire on pension, plus the maximum possible from the National Assistance Board. If the total income of a person from the two sources, of basic retirement pension and earned increment on top of it, comes in this range between the basic retirement pension and what one gets from the basic retirement pension and the National Assistance Board, then one begins to wonder what is the point of doing this work at all.
Therefore, I believe that if this scheme of de-retirement is to be as successful as my right hon. Friend hopes, we shall have to introduce a Bill to increase the increment which a person receives by working after the minimum retirement age. In so far as the de-retirement provisions stand, I heartily welcome them.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East came to the more contentious part of the Bill, namely, Clause 4, and wondered why my right hon. Friend had included this Clause in the Bill, when

the National Insurance Advisory Committee not only did not recommend that it should be included, but by implication, suggested that it was not prepared to suggest that it should. I think that here, if I read the mind of my right hon. Friend aright, one has to consider the Bill as a whole.
I presume that when my right hon. Friend started to draw up this Bill, he had to bear in mind the very substantial annual deficits into which the National Insurance Fund will in the coming years begin to move. I presume that he therefore decided that it was essential that, in any Bill which he brought forward to ameliorate the conditions of certain people under the National Insurance scheme, the extra expense which he incurred would have to be balanced by the savings of which he could make.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly): I am sure that the hon. Member will realise the danger of what he is now putting forward. To begin with, when the National Insurance scheme came into existence, we took over from the old unemployment insurance scheme several scores of millions of pounds which had been accumulated during the war, and ever since 1946, taking the unemployment part of the fund, there has been a continuing increase in the surplus of the fund. I am, therefore, asking the hon. Gentleman whether lie is now suggesting, in considering the problem of retirement pensions, that to meet that deficit we should reduce the provisions for unemployment, sickness and other benefits?

Mr. Freeth: I do not think that when the right hon. Gentleman reads my speech tomorrow, as I am sure he will, he will come to the conclusion that that was what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting was that, taking National Insurance as a whole, my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that it would be improvident, unless the contributions were raised, to increase the deficit into which the fund as a whole will be moving over the next five, ten or twenty years.
I do not know whether this is one of the reasons which led him to look particularly carefully at the amount of unemployment benefit paid at present to a man working a five-day week if he is on short-time and, in fact, works for only four days a week.
I listened with special interest to the right hon. Member talking about the effects of Clause 4 upon workers who were working short-time, and upon the question whether it would encourage them to move away from the jobs in which they were working short-time to try to obtain full-time employment in other industries, or in the same industry in other places. When an industry goes on short-time, as a rule it is certainly for the good of the worker and also for the country that he begins as soon as possible to work in a full-time job again.
If there are any signs that the period of short-time is likely to be prolonged every encouragement should be given to workers on short-time to try to find full-time employment. If we are trying to encourage people to move from luxury industries to basic industries, and from industries catering purely for the home market into industries which are primarily manufacturing goods for export, it is prudent to look at the encouragements and discouragements which exist in the way in which a National Insurance Fund deals with persons on short-time.
There was an anomaly here, because a man who is on a six-day or five-and-a-half-day week has never been able to draw unemployment benefit during a week in which he lost one day's work. I fully appreciate the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there is always the danger that people will misunderstand one's motives, and feel that in this case a benefit which they have enjoyed for some time is being taken away, and not for the highest motives. I believe, however, that it is occasionally right to run the risk of having one's motives misunderstood, or even misrepresented; indeed, I believe that there has been substantial misunderstanding about Clause 4, and in some cases I think that there has been misrepresentation, whether deliberate or otherwise I do not wish to say.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has read a Report which appeared in the Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth and District Morning News on Monday, 4th March, during the recent by-election. It referred to a meeting of the party opposite at which one Socialist speaker told an

audience, estimated at over 500, that by the Bill workers on short-time would get no unemployment benefit at all.
The report quoted the speaker as saying:
 What has happened is this—the Conservatives have just published a Bill amending the National Insurance Acts in which Clause 4 provides that no worker on short-time can draw any benefit at all.
In fact, a person working a five-day week will find that if he is on short-time and only works a four-day week he will receive no benefit, just as, at present a person working a six-day or five-and-a-half-day working week does not receive unemployment benefit if he loses only one day's work a week.
The speaker was also reported as saying:
 Even if you work a single day in any one week you cannot draw benefit under the new Bill.
That is certainly a misrepresentation. I do not know the motives with which it was made—it may have been a complete misunderstanding—but the effect of such a speech in an area where there is substantial short-time working must be fairly obvious, especially during a by-election campaign.

Mr. Houghton: I think that the hon. Member will agree that there can be misunderstandings even at by-elections.

Mr. Freeth: Certainly, and on this occasion I feel that it is fairly obvious that many of the electorate misunderstood many of the excellent aims of my right hon. Friend.
I should like my hon. Friend to tell me whether or not I am right in assuming that the Bill does not change the legal effect, as determined by the independent statutory authorities, of guaranteed week agreements upon the unemployment benefit rights of workers on short time, even in respect of five-day week workers with guaranteed week agreements.
I welcome the Bill because it provides an additional incentive—although I do not believe that it is nearly large enough —to people who are over the minimum retirement age, and who might be encouraged to work longer. I welcome it for another reason, which I shall not go into in detail, namely, that the wives of men on sickness benefit who wish to earn more than 20s. a week and still qualify


for the dependant's increase will be able to do so. I welcome it, further, for the provision with regard to mothers of children of dissolved marriages, who will receive a special allowance under Clause 5 upon the death of their ex-husbands. All those provisions are excellent, and I believe that most hon. Members will agree with them.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East has said, I would still welcome the Bill as a whole. One of my reasons is that no additional expenditure is to be imposed either upon the Exchequer or upon the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. J. Griffiths: That is not correct.

Mr. Freeth: That is a cardinal principle of the Bill, and I regard it as a first-rate one. I rejoice to see that we are doing good without increasing, to any substantial extent, the claims upon the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington): If the hon. Member will read the Explanatory Memorandum he will see the financial effect of the Bill. It mentions the figure of £200,000.

Mr. Griffiths: No—£2 million.

Mr. Freeth: That is quite true. But the final words of that paragraph state that:
 this latter figure will be likely to be in part offset by reduced expenditure on unemployment benefit.

Mr. Hynd: In part.

Mr. Freeth: And it says that no additional charge upon the Exchequer is entailed. I agree that in regard to the National Insurance Fund I may have exaggerated a little but, by and large, the benefits of the Bill are substantially greater than the net cost to the National Insurance Fund.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: We on this side of the House welcome, of course, what is good in this Bill, the general effect of which is to implement the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 all implement recommendations of that Committee. As the Minister pointed out, some of the recom-

mendations do not require legislation and could be made by regulation. The right hon. Gentleman said that regulations were being prepared for that purpose. But in this Bill there is an "ugly duckling." It is Clause 4, which is alien to the whole tone and spirit of the Bill. I will discuss that Clause a little later.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) referred to the inadequate encouragements to people to postpone their retirement and stay at work. There is no doubt that the encouragements are inadequate, but one of the difficulties about improving the inducement to stay at work by adding to the pension on eventual retirement is the unfairness that may be created between those insured persons who can stay at work and those who cannot.
At all events, it is very dangerous to load or weight the benefits heavily in favour of the man who stays at work to the possible disadvantage of the man who must retire. That is especially true of men in heavy industry who cannot easily extend their working life, or those who are compulsorily retired whether they want to retire or not, and who find it difficult to get any other work.
These are difficulties which are bound to engage the attention of all concerned with stocktaking after ten years of the operation of the National Insurance Scheme. Nor do I think it would be right to give more favourable inducements to re-enter employment after retirement than those given to insured persons to postpone their retirement. I think it right that the Bill should provide the same conditions in both circumstances. I do not regard Clauses 1 and 2 as any particular inducement to people to reenter employment after having retired. I think it an option made to those who probably are going back to full-time work anyway. To that extent it is welcome. How far it will be taken advantage of remains to be seen.
About the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on adult dependants, I am bound to express a personal disappointment—I commit no one else in this—that the Committee was not able to look more favourably on the representations made regarding benefits to the unmarried wife. There is nothing inconsistent in the plea


I make now and the support that I should gladly have given to the Private Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Davenport (Miss Vickers) had I not been unwell and unable to attend the House on the day when the Second Reading debate took place.
We have to be fair as between different claimants in different circumstances. But representations were made by the General Council of the T.U.C. that widows' benefit should be given to a female person living with the insured person as his wife. I am bound to copy that description for the sake of precedent from the regulations made during the war when married allowances were given to women who were in this position. There is a conventional objection to the use of the term "unmarried wife".
I know the difficulties about rival claims for benefit which would arise in some circumstances, if the dependency benefits were extended to cover this class of person. But some very hard cases can arise regarding both widows' benefit and dependants' allowances for a retired man. There was a particularly grievous case recently in my constituency. It involved a man who had last seen his wife over thirty years ago and had not heard from her since. He entered into a form of marriage with another woman and brought up a family. Long ago he had regarded himself as legally married to the person with whom he was living, and his children looked upon them as mother and father legally married. When this man reached the age of 65 the wife to whom he was legally married, who had at least kept a record of his birthday if nothing else, thought it time to write to the Ministry of National Insurance and state her claim for the wife's dependent benefit when the man drew his retirement pension.
As a matter of fact, by the time this matter was investigated the man had drawn some benefit and I pay tribute to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for not asking for the money back. I think that that was generous in the circumstances, because the man had no legal claim under the Act as it now stands. It would have been a grievously hard case had the Ministry demanded a refund of the money. I am sure that the essentials of that case are reproduced up and down the country.
It is very likely that the Ministry would not wish to be too heavily involved in these "judgments of Solomon" between rival claimants to benefit or a share of benefit. But it is already taking something on under the provisions of Clause 1, which come very near to adjudicating between man and wife. In any case, the Inland Revenue is confronted every day with these complexities and it does not shrink from them. There are rival claims for child allowance, separations, claims to be regarded as married or single, and so on. I am sure that the Ministry need not worry too much about the administrative complications.
I am not, of course, complaining about the Ministry. These proposals were decided against by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I have said my word on that. I leave entirely aside—as did the Committee—the moral considerations in this matter, and try to deal with life as it is and to see how far they can meet the requirements of the situation. Apparently it was decided that it could not be done, at least not without a more radical review of the scope of dependency benefits than the Committee considered it was its duty to carry out.
Now I come to Clause 4, the "ugly duckling." I am sure that every Minister must be a little worried when one of his hon. Friends presumes to read his mind, because it is always almost certain that the reading will be wrong. I think that the hon. Member for Basingstoke credited his right hon. Friend with being more of an administrator and less of a politician than he really is. The truth is that Clause 4 was put into this Bill at the point of a gun, the gun being the threat of electoral abstension by Conservative Voters. Those were the people who got upset at what they saw going on last year, the short-time working, particularly in the motor industry, and the existing rule for unemployment benefit.
The National Insurance Advisory Committee considered this matter twice before, and the last time, before we were faced with serious short-time working in five-day week industries, so that it was reviewing the matter at an early stage, I admit under less pressure, let us say, than would be the case today. The National Insurance Advisory Committee found no satisfactory solution to this matter, at


least not one commanding overwhelming support in the Committee.
I would digress to say that recently I had my first experience of making representations to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, on matters not within the scope of the Bill and not before the House. I came away with a distinct impression of the care with which the Committee considers these complex matters. I have no doubt that it weighed up very carefully indeed, and spent a long time in looking at, this difficult problem of the complexities of unemployment benefit involved in a change from a five-and-a-half-day week to a five-day week arrangement.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not consult the T.U.C. about it. He may think that he knows the views of the T.U.C. He had already had the benefit of reviewing the differences of opinion in the National Insurance Advisory Committee on two occasions. He may think that this was a matter on which Her Majesty's Government had to make up their minds and announce a decision to the House of Commons.
Was it quite as clear as that? Could not the right hon. Gentleman have approached the T.U.C. and said, "In present circumstances, more attention must be given to this matter. I want you to consider whether there are alternatives to the present arrangements. Can we see whether any of them is acceptable?" The right hon. Gentleman did not do that. The first that the T.U.C. heard about this was when the Bill was published. I am not saying that the Minister is under any obligation to consult the T.U.C. every time about everything, but here was a matter which was bound to come very close to trade union interests and to the interests of the workers. Since it had been the subject of consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in the past it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman taken that step. He might not have got any agreeable response, but he would have given the T.U.C. an opportunity of seeing whether something different might be done in the problem between the five-and-a-half day and the five-day working week.
The unfairness of the proposal in the Bill is that many workers on a five-day

week do just as many hours of work as they did in the five-and-a-half-day week. I have had some connection with this matter; in the case I have in mind, there is not the slightest doubt that we got a five-day week on condition that the hours of work in the five-and-a-half days were spread over five days. That means that each of the five days carries a higher factor in the week's wages than each day did under the five-and-a-half-day week arrangement; yet for unemployment benefit purposes the Bill proposes that if a man on a five-day week is unemployed for the Friday of the week he will get no unemployment benefit, even though he lost more than a day's wages, calculated on a five-and-a-half-day basis. This is an anomaly which is bound to be felt acutely.
The National Insurance Advisory Committee felt unable to recommend a departure from the present arrangements which fix unemployment benefit by the day. Of course, there is another factor which can be taken. I am not saying that it is free from difficulty. The fair thing would be to give unemployment benefit by reference to the proportion of the working week lost. That is the mathematics and the equity of the matter. It involves a departure from the traditional arrangement of unemployment benefit paid by the day. That I admit.
I only throw it out as a personal suggestion that the matter could have been looked at more carefully. If the Minister had it in mind to do something he could have asked the T.U.C. to find a satisfactory answer to the problem. He did not give it a chance to do so. When we come to the Committee I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter and see whether he can find a different and fairer way out.
I know that, just looked at in the news, papers, or by "Pro Bono Publico" writing his letter to the newspapers, it seems wasteful to pay unemployment benefit for a day on which a person does not normally work, but unless unemployment benefit is adjusted to the distribution of hours a week over five days instead of five-and-a-half we cannot solve the problem by the method proposed by the Bill.
I hope that we shall find other ways of meeting this situation later. Even at its worst, even if the Minister were concerned about the short-time working arrangements


in the motor industry at a particular time, to save redundancy or a four-day week for some workers and complete unemployment for others, and to overcome a temporary situation, is there anything wrong about the existing method? Is it so lamentable? Was it not an attempt to meet special circumstances for a temporary period? After all, what is unemployment benefit for if not to meet unemployment and short-time working? It is to support the worker when his capacity for full earning is impaired by unemployment; that is the principle of it.
Goodness knows, the Insurance Fund has benefited to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of million of pounds on account of insurance contributions from the unemployment element being put much higher for a long time than actual unemployment warranted. In fact, benefits have been paid to every nationally insured person out of the favourable state of the funds created by the low unemployment ratio as compared with the actuarial computation of the unemployment factor in the total contribution. I do not think that any of these workers is asking for something that he has not paid in for, even in the arrangement, about which the Minister no doubt complains privately although he has not said so today, for short-time working.
That is the indictment against Clause 4. We shall want to examine the Clause critically in Committee. It would have been much better, in present circumstances, for the Minister to have left well alone. If there is any widespread extension of the kind of arrangement to which I have referred, the whole employment situation will be grave and other measures might have to be taken to deal with the social and economic consequences. There was nothing in this to give the Minister or the Insurance Fund any ground for concern, because it was purely temporary and transitional. If it had become more permanent the Minister might have thought something should be done about it.
All in all, the right hon. Gentleman would do better to withdraw the Clause altogether and to let things continue as they are. If he must go on with it and if he persists in his refusal to leave things as they are, he must expect that we shall give critical attention to the detail to see whether we can find an alternative.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: It has rightly been said that the whole business of National Insurance as it concerns the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance today is very complex. This Bill certainly adds to the complexity. I felt that rather than speak in the debate I should like to put down the Bill, wave goodbye to my right hon. Friend and say, "See you later, legislator."
I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon inserting the controversial Clause 4 in the Bill. It could be another grasping of a nettle. It is obvious that people have been drawing unemployment pay for days on which they were not unemployed and for days on which they do not normally work. While some of us may not wish to be niggardly and quarrel about it, the problem is not the amount of money involved but the inequality as between individual workers.
Many of us know workers, normally working six or even seven days a week, who have been unable to draw unemployment pay, whereas a five-day week worker who works only four days is able to draw unemployment pay for the fifth day. The man who works six or seven days a week very often earns less money —perhaps in the Post Office; certainly in the dairy trade—than five-day week workers in the motor trade. That is very unfair.
It is extremely unfair when such people see Austin workers going home with £14 or £15 in their pockets after working four days and then being able to draw unemployment pay for the fifth day. "Unemployment pay" obviously means money given to prevent hardship during unemployment. If we are to pay unemployment benefit for days on which such people as I have mentioned do not work, why should we not pay it to a lot of other people who never work anyway?

Miss Margaret Herbison: Surely the logical conclusion to the hon. Gentleman's argument must be that if a man makes sufficient money in two days at work he does not need any unemployment benefit at all in respect of the rest of the week.

Mr. Gurden: The hon. Lady is taking me a little further than I intended to go, and I am not going with her. All I say is that it is unreasonable and unfair that


this situation should exist. What I have described is against the whole idea of the Act.

Mr. H. Hynd: I represent not motor car workers but textile workers, who have a very low minimum wage. Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same argument to them? Will he remember that when they receive unemployment benefit in future it will be on the basis of one-sixth of a week and not one-fifth, so that they will lose it both ways?

Mr. Gurden: The hon. Gentleman has helped my argument. Surely the textile worker who is paid less than the motor trade worker does not like to think that the motor trade worker can go home with £15 in his pocket and also draw unemployment benefit. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have seen the anomaly. I see it, although I do not know whether I should have seen it so easily had it not been drawn to my attention by constituents of mine who do not like the motor trade workers to take advantage of money which they themselves have paid into the fund through working six days a week all the year round. I should have thought that the Clause was a reasonable one.
I turn now to the subject of retirement pensions. If we were doing our job properly here, I suppose we should feel very much like increasing the old-age pension. I think that at heart we should all like to do so, although they are at a higher level than they have ever been, even taking into account the higher cost of living. I propose to take the facts as they are, and I accept the official figures.
The problem for any Government has always been where to obtain the money to pay increased retirement pensions. It is no use saying that the Government will supply the money. It is the people of the country who have to find it by some means or other. That brings us back to the problem of what is the highest level of retirement pension that we can provide.
We ought to look to the future. Thanks to the tremendous strides made in the medical world and in improved nutrition, people are living longer. I should like the retirement pension to be raised at once. I should like the ages at which the pension is paid raised by six months, making them 60½ and 65½ years respec-

tively. In another two years those ages could be raised by another six months perhaps. All the money so saved, and perhaps a little more, should be added to the retirement pension. None of it should be taken away; it should be given to those who draw pensions. I make this suggestion because it is obvious to anyone who realises how the average age of the population is increasing that some day it will have to happen, and the sooner it happens the better.
People are now living longer. In respect of the payment of old-age pensions, can we say that a person is now old at 60 or 65? People in my constituency have come to me in tears because they have had to retire at 65 from a job which they loved. Many say they are fit to continue at work, and one must admit that many of them look fit enough. I admit that there are types of employment which bear heavily upon people and in which they age more quickly than in others.
Sooner or later a Minister will have to face this problem of increasing the minimum age. Surely that is the obvious solution to the problem, which will be an ever-growing problem. The number of industries and the number of workers in industry, with the amount of money which they pay into the Exchequer, will not be able to pay decent pensions in thirty or forty years' time for the increased number of old people who will be on the books.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this problem. I congratulate him again on the Bill. Indeed, I think he was rather too modest in his presentation of it, because I think it is more important than he made it out to be.

6.21 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I certainly cannot follow the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) in congratulating the Minister on including the iniquitous Clause 4 in the Bill.
If I heard correctly the hon. Member's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), he seemed to be advancing the extraordinary thesis that people with low wages should receive unemployment benefit but that people who earned higher wages should not. That, I should have thought, was the logical conclusion to be drawn from his argument.
The hon. Member does not represent a motor car constituency. I do, and I can assure him that, however good they may be, employers in a motor car constituency are not philanthropists and that everything the men receive is a result of work done. I do not think that the point the hon. Member made was worth very much, because it does not seem to lead us anywhere.
The Minister ought to be told, if he does not know it already, that there is grave dissatisfaction, added to the other dissatisfaction which the Government have given, among the unions in Coventry over this Bill. As I understand—and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—before the war benefit was paid only to those who were out of work for three days in six. That meant that the short-time worker on a four-day week was automatically excluded. In 1940, Mr. Ernest Bevin changed this rule to two days out of six.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, in 1953 the National Insurance Advisory Committee was asked to consider the provisions governing short spells of unemployment or sickness, particularly where a claimant was already receiving payments from his employer. Even though it was asked to do this, I believe it is correct to say that the Committee was unable to give any advice to clear up a very difficult situation, and that it proposed no change in the existing arrangements. If that background is correct, then I gather that the present position, before this Bill becomes law, is that a worker who wishes to claim unemployment benefit is required to prove that he is unemployed on two days within a period of six days.
We have a good deal of unemployment and short-time working in Coventry today. As recently as 11th March, as was revealed at Question Time in the House this week, we had 2,826 men and women wholly unemployed, with only 618 vacancies registered at employment Exchanges. My reason for making the point is that there is a widespread suspicion in Coventry, which I certainly share, that all this unemployment and short-time working— itself a result of direct Government policy, for they have deliberately brought it about— is causing

the Government to consider the whole question of the redeployment of labour.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) spoke of workers moving from job to job. We on these benches have repeatedly asked a question which might now be put to the present Minister, because the problem concerns him as well as the Minister of Labour. The question is: are the Government prepared to discuss with the unions and the employers adequate guarantees for the maintenance and rehousing, under redeployment conditions, of redundant workers? I ask that because we believe that Clause 4 is brought forward as some means of achieving that end and as a means to prevent the Government from having to suggest remedies which would be more acceptable to the workers involved.
The Coventry District Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions is very strongly of the opinion that the Government feel that if unemployment benefit continues to be paid as at present to men on short-time in certain industries, it will make them less mobile because they will be reluctant to change their jobs. The unions in Coventry see Clause 4 as a method of adding persuasion in order to force these men to change their jobs, and they feel very strongly about it.
As I expect the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary knows, for a number of years workers in the engineering industry have been disqualified from claiming benefit due to the wording of a guaranteed week agreement which operated in the industry. Mr. Harry Urwin, who is Secretary of the Coventry District Committee of the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions, said on 16th February that the unions had been working for years to devise a form of words which would ensure that short-time workers would qualify for unemployment benefit, within the framework of the present legislation, for odd days of unemployment.
At present, we have a great deal of industrial unrest in the country and we hear repeated requests from the benches opposite that the unions should be prepared to negotiate on industrial matters. In the case of the present dispute, we should obviously use the words "submit to arbitration" rather than "negotiate",


because the unions are already willing to negotiate.
This is a point which may not have struck right hon. and hon. Members opposite. As recently as 25th February, the Confederation resolved this very thorny problem of claiming for unemployment benefit with the Employers' Federation and workers in the engineering industry can now claim this benefit. The Government are asking unions to negotiate with employers. The unions have spent a long time doing so, and at last an amicable agreement has been reached. The moment the amicable agreement has been reached, if we can call 25th February "the moment", the Government step in and torpedo what is being done by introducing Clause 4.
I should be glad if the hon. Lady, in her reply, will state whether the unions are correct about this. They believe that Clause 4 will partly nullify the effects of the agreement which they have negotiated wtih the employers. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I hope that we shall have a very clear statement from his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tonight.
The hon. Lady may not like this, but I must say it: we in Coventry feel that she does not entirely understand the position of the workers who are redundant in the motor car industry. I have brought with me a copy of HANSARD for 20th March, 1956. The debate on that day followed immediately on a speech made in Birmingham by the hon. Lady, in which she took very strong objection to the fact that people in the motor car industry were not prepared to move to other jobs at less pay. She thought they should go—just like that.
Reference to column 1065 of HANSARD of 20th March, 1956, will show this and that I mentioned it again in column 1091. The workers in the motor car industry took strong exception to these remarks, so, if the hon. Lady is to reply to this debate, as I gather she is, I hope that she will bear it in mind when addressing herself to the question of redundant workers.
At present, a worker on short time can regard Saturday as a day of unemployment and can add it to any other day within a period of six days on which he

may be out of work. We believe that Clause 4 removes that right. Perhaps we could have some comment on that. I believe that the workers have had that right ever since unemployment insurance was introduced in 1911.
The Coventry District Committee stressed another point and asked me to get an answer from the Minister on it. The Committee says that a man can be employed for only one day in each week yet still be refused benefit for the other days of unemployment, because he is said to be covered by his guaranteed week agreement for four days of the week. This may all sound very complicated in the matter of detail, but the important point is that here is a problem that has been causing difficulty for a good many years.
As we see it in Coventry, at the very moment when an amicable agreement has been reached between the employers and the unions on a method by which short-time workers may receive unemployment benefit, the Government interferes by this legislation. The Confederation is afraid that by the passing of this Bill we will be cutting the benfit entitlement of the applicant by at least half, and will make it much more difficult for him to establish his claim to benefit. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in common, I think, with all my colleagues on this side, I wish to protest most strongly against Clause 4, and express the hope that the Minister will have second thoughts about it.

Mr. Gurden: Does not the hon. Lady think that the recent habit of negotiating for short time from a five-day to a four-day week in some parts of this highly-paid industry has become popular because of this very fact that the workers would still be entitled to draw unemployment pay for a day on which they never worked and would do so rather than move to other jobs?

Miss Burton: That raises a whole host of issues. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that the whole matter of the four-day and the five-day week should be settled by negotiations between the unions and the employers, and not by Government legislation.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: If I do not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) it is because when I am confronted by one with such a clear mastery of her own industry I know that I should be tackling an expert in a subject of which, unfortunately, I know nothing—the employer-union arrangements in the motor car industry. I sometimes wish that we had some motor car factories near my own constituency, so that the people there could earn the high wages which, I believe, have been common for many years in Coventry.
Before I leave the complications of Clause 4 of the Bill, I believe that the views on the other side of the House might well be expressed by the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). They can, I think, be reasonably summarised as saying that Clause 4 produces a marked change which he did not like. I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Houghton: That is a perfectly good reason for objecting to something, is it not?

Mr. Fort: I want to welcome Clauses and 2 of the Bill and to put to the Minister what I, fear, he might not accept: an alternative to the word "de-retirement", which we all detest. I would substitute "back to insurance". It is true that that phrase would add to the number of letters, but at least they would be English words, which "de-retirement" is not.
One reason I welcome this Bill has not often been referred to. It will give an additional chance to those who feel they want to start work again and so keep themselves in better health. We do not need doctors to tell us that retirement is an important cause of people's physical condition gradually deteriorating. A few months after they have retired, thinking that that will enjoy retirement, they do not find it at all to their liking, and they begin to go to pieces physically. Yet, as things have been since 1948, they have not been able to return to work and do what they themselves know would be good for them. I strongly welcome giving this additional chance to those who want to do what is helpful to their health.
The de-retirement proposal has rather more significance than has been made out generally this afternoon. It seems to me to be another step in the direction of moving away from the strict retirement conditions which Lord Beveridge proposed in his Report, and the Coalition Government accepted in a White Paper, and was incorporated in the 1946 Act. We started shuffling from the retirement pension with the loosening-up of conditions for occasional earnings on a graduated scale, introduced by a Private Member's Bill last year.
With this Bill we take another shuffle forward. By doing so, we show that after a practical experience of the problems of retirement now for over ten years we feel that the last word was still very far from being said in the 1946 Act. I hope that the Government will note this tendency, and encourage us to think more about these problems by allowing a debate on the Phillips Report.
One further small point which I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend is that, when he issues the regulations, I hope that he will not start off immediately by saying that there can be only one de-retirement followed by final retirement. I have never been to the Ministry's Newcastle office to see what is involved, administratively, but if it is practical to allow a fair number of retirements and de-retirements that would certainly help those who would like to work, and also be of great value not only in the seaside industries, which is an obvious example, but also in farming, where there is so much extra work required at certain times of the year.

6.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): As my right hon. Friend said, this Bill is a very intricate one and forms part of a very intricate subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that it is difficult to understand, and I sympathise with that view. The Bill is, indeed, technical and complicated.
All the comments which have been made in the debate this afternoon have been favourable towards the general provisions of the Bill, with reservations


about Clause 4, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) called the "ugly duckling". Since no questions have been asked of me about the other provisions, I do not propose to take up the time of the House by referring to them, although I am well aware that hon. Members have made the reservation that they will want to discuss them further in Committee.
The Bill seeks to effect improvements and adjustments in the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries schemes. It arises mainly from the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee in its Reports, and many of those recommendations have already been implemented. With this Bill we shall have legislated for all recommendations which require legislation except death grant, the subject of the latest report which is under consideration.
As hon. Members will know, many recommendations of the Committee can be implemented by regulations; some are already in operation, and others we shall be submitting in draft to the Committee shortly. I hope that this answers the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough. East. For the two recommendations he particularly had in mind, Numbers 3 and 4 of the Report on Dependency Provisions, draft regulations are now in preparation.
As regards de-retirement, there is one point which I must mention. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) said that he hoped this would not add to the difficulties of those who must make up their minds whether they wish to retire or not. I hope that the provisions of the Bill will make it easier for people to understand both the retirement principle and the earnings rule. If they make up their minds and then find that they have made them up in the wrong way, the Bill gives them a second chance.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby referred to the amount of pension the retirement pensioner would lose because of his return to work by pension forgone and by contributions he had to pay. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby really had his tongue in his cheek. His argument was fallacious, because he

chose, very carefully, to count in the pension. In fact, the man he is thinking of is foregoing pension because he is no longer retired; he has given up retirement for the moment and is earning full wages.
That, I hope, answers my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also, who was concerned that a man would have to live for so many years after 70, if in the meantime he had foregone pension and paid contributions, to recoup himself on increments.

Mr. Freeth: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. This is really not just an academic exercise. The point has been put to me very strongly by a sub-postmaster in my constituency who tells me that many people come to him and say, "It is just not worth while doing all this work. I may die and I shall not get my money's worth from the National Insurance scheme".

Miss Pitt: That is a risk which we all take with insurance. In particular, the expectation of life of a man of 65 is just about twelve years. The calculation which the hon. Member for Sowerby made was incorrect inasmuch as a man might expect to recoup nearly six times his stake in the years he would normally expect to live above minimum pension age. I hope that I have made that clear.
There is another point which occurs to me, which is of some importance. The man who forfeits pension, goes on working and earns himself increments, will enjoy these increments for himself, and perhaps for his wife, too, at the time when his age is rising and he will be most in need of any additional income for which he will have been able to insure.
I come now to Clause 4, which is the matter on which we have had argument. The purpose of the Clause is to remedy an anomaly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East mentioned the word "anomaly," and said that there had been many difficulties in the past; but I wonder whether he would answer me this question. What is wrong with trying to put right something which is anomalous?
It is, I think, agreed that this particular provision is anomalous; it was not


visualised when the 1946 National Insurance Act was passed, because the five-day week was only just beginning then. The adoption of the five-day week has increased enormously in the years since 1946, until we have arrived at a stage when, as my right hon. Friend said, roughly half the employed population is on a five-day week.

Miss Herbison: Has any inquiry been made into this mater, which I should like to put to the hon. Lady? I have in mind workers who worked a five-and-a-half-day week, five clays and the half day on Saturday. They decided that they would rather go on to a five-day week. They arranged it by working longer on each of the five days. How many workers are in that position? If such a thing is general, it seems to me that this is not an anomaly which the Minister is trying to clear away. He will be doing a grave injustice to those people who are doing exactly the same hours of work, divided between five days instead of five and a half.

Miss Pitt: With respect, I really do not think that that has any bearing on our debate, although I can add, from my own experience, that in 1946, when a five-day week was introduced into the engineering factory in Birmingham where I earned my living, the number of hours for everybody concerned was reduced from 47 to 44. But even if it still continued at 47, it is the working week accomplished in five days.
The present "two in six" rule was introduced in 1940, as the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) reminded us, and assumed a working week of six or five-and-a-half days. It is important to bear in mind that, despite all the discussion about the effects of Clause 4, there remains the other half of the population still on a six-day or five-and-a-half-day week; such people are unable to claim for one day of unemployment. At present, when working four days or less, the five-day week worker can claim for Saturday although it is not a normal working day. The result is that he gets two days' benefit— tax free, incidentally— for the loss of one day's work. This has been much criticised because it is unfair to other contributors, the other workers who are

themselves still on a five-and-a-half or six-day week.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, argued that if a man now working a five-day week is on short time and is available for work, it is very difficult to test. I agree, but the information we have in the Ministry is that very few, if any, of these workers not entitled to benefit, because perhaps of the agreement referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, bother to register at the employment exchange.
These figures, also, are important and, I hope, answer one of the right hon. Gentleman's points: when the general engineering agreement which previously prevented benefit was changed in February, about 20,000 workers came to the exchange and declared themselves available for work and claimed benefit because they could now claim for two days. But before, when they knew there was no hope of benefit, they did not bother to register at all.
The Advisory Committee was asked as long ago as June, 1953, to review the question of short-time working. I emphasise this, because there have been suggestions from hon. Members opposite that my right hon. Friend had some Machiavellian intention in introducing Clause 4 in the last few weeks to counteract the change in the agreement concerning the working week. That is not so. The matter was referred to the Advisory Committee in June, 1953, to review the question of short-time working. The Advisory Committee discussed it fully and, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East has reminded us, its members were almost equally divided. "Equally" is the operative word. The Advisory Committee's Report was published in November, 1955, but it made no recommendation.
When the hon. Member for Sowerby stressed that in its Report the Advisory Committee said that it felt that it should not recommend except by a substantial majority of opinion, the point surely is that as a Committee its members felt that they should not make any recommendations unless there was a majority in favour of them. The Government of the day, however, are in a different position and they have come to the conclusion that payment for a day not normally


worked, when men do not intend or expect to work, is an abuse which must be remedied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said that he assumed that the Bill would not change the legal effect of agreements now in operation. That ties up with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South. The answer is that the Bill does not change the effects of those agreements, nor would we wish to try to do that. The effect will be that the five-day week worker, when on short time, will not be able to claim for Saturday. When he loses one day in a week, however, the question of whether he can claim benefit will depend on the pattern of his short-time working.
The five-day week worker is not necessarily debarred, although, I may add, the Government have been urged in some quarters to secure this. He is in the same position as the six-day worker, and will have to lose two days in six to qualify for benefit. If he loses two or more days in a week, he will be able to draw benefit. If he is unemployed for the full week, he will get a full week's unemployment benefit.
The new rule will not apply when the employment is terminated nor will it apply to the six-day week worker. That answers the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who raised the question of wrong reports and mis-statements which have been made in the Press concerning the possible effect of Clause 4.
I was asked a question concerning the size of the problem and how much we hope to save. The answer is that we hope to save very little, because we hope there will not be any short-time working. I was asked how many short-time workers were at present registered. As the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East will appreciate, that is the concern of the Minister of Labour. I am, however, advised that at the beginning of the year about 155,000 people were on short-time, and that by the middle of March the figure had declined to 100,000, in the manufacturing industries.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what extra administrative cost would be involved. The answer is that there will

be very little extra. Although there may be difficulties and fringe problems to be solved, we do not expect to be involved in very much additional administrative cost, nor do we need any extra staff to deal with the changes. That answers another of the questions he asked.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that Clause 4 would breed resentment because, he said, it would make for discrimination among workers. There is, however, already discrimination between the six-day and the five-day worker. I should have thought that if there was resentment, it would be on the side of the existing six-day worker, who contributes for the five-day week man who draws benefit when on short time. In fairness to both classes of men, I think that the Clause has much to commend it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we should introduce the Clause at this particular time. The short answer is that we had no previous opportunity. There has been no opportunity for legislation, through our Department, to introduce the Clause.

Mr. Marquand: What about last year?

Miss Pitt: The right hon. Gentleman interjects, "What about last year?" May I refresh his memory?
At the beginning of last year, my right hon. Friend, in putting the Report on Widow's Benefits before the House, said he was afraid that there was no possibility of legislation. Subsequently, in the Budget, the announcement was made of an increase in family allowances. So we were able to introduce a Bill. Because the matter was urgent and desirable, we introduced into that Bill the provisions to benefit widows. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who assured us that he would co-operate in giving the Bill a speedy passage through the House, because we all wanted these things to be done; but we could not then introduce any other legislation which might delay it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman now understands the position.

Mr. Houghton: That shows how wrong was the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) when he attempted to read the Minister's mind. He has had this rod in pickle for a long time and has been awaiting an opportunity to use it. He has now brought it


in alongside beneficent gestures to widows, dependants, children and the rest. That is the explanation of Clause 4. I hope that I have now shattered the hon. Member's illusions about his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Freeth: Even pickles can be very charming.

Miss Pitt: I should hate to speculate on my right hon. Friend's mind.
I hope, however, that that intervention removes any suspicions and doubts, some of which have been voiced, that in introducing the Clause into the Bill my right hon. Friend had in mind any action directed against the motor car workers. That is not the case. I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, who said that the unions in Coventry saw Clause 4 as a means of causing their members to become mobile, that that is certainly no part of the intention behind the Bill. The question of mobility is one not for our Department, but for the Ministry of Labour.
The hon. Lady asked about agreements and their effect. Agreements are a matter for industry itself, for the employers and the employees to negotiate. Certainly, we would not wish to do anything that would preclude the introduction or extension of agreements, which are a very good thing in industrial relations. I think that the hon. Lady really answered herself when she said that the Confederation had resolved its thorny problem by altering the wording of its agreement to enable its members to benefit from unemployment pay when they really were unemployed. All that happens under the Bill is that the amount of unemployment pay by which they will benefit will be reduced directly in relation to those days of unemployment when they are not, and would not expect to be, at work.

Miss Burton: That is the whole point. That is what they are objecting to.

Miss Pitt: But it does not frustrate the agreement. Nothing upsets the agree-

ment. If the men are unemployed on days when they would normally work, they will get benefit. That is quite clear.
Hon. Members will wish to know when we hope to bring the Bill into operation. We shall need to make appointed days for almost every part of it. The dependency benefit for the wife whose earnings do not exceed 40s. can be dealt with, we think, within a week or two of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent. We shall need time to make an order and notify our offices of the operation of the date, but that aspect will come into operation first.
The other provisions cannot come into operation until the regulations are made. As hon. Members know, they must be submitted to our National Insurance Advisory Committee. Although the Bill mainly implements the Advisory Committee's recommendations, those were in broad terms and it would be an advantage to have the Committee's views on detailed provisions. We intend, however, to submit the regulations to the Advisory Committee soon after the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
It is expected that we can bring some regulations into operation within six to eight weeks after the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. It may be two or three months before the Advisory Committee is able to report on the remaining regulations, but we hope that we shall have all the provisions of the Bill in operation within six months of its receiving the Royal Assent.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is a modest Measure. The majority of its recommendations benefit the minorities amongst us. That is its main intention. I am very glad that it is to have a Second Reading today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, relating to grants by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority" and "the Board" respectively) towards new vessels and engines and to the white fish subsidy, and to provide a subsidy in respect of herring, it is expedient to authorize—
(a) any increase in the sums which, in accordance with subsection (4) of section one or subsection (5) of section six of the said Act of 1953, may be required to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session,—
(i) authorising the making of a grant in pursuance of a scheme under either of those sections in respect of expenditure incurred in the conversion, from coal-firing to oil-firing, of the engine-boilers of any fishing vessel not exceeding one hundred and forty feet in length, in a case where the contract for the execution of the work of conversion is shown to the satisfaction of the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, to have been made after such day, whether before or after the passing of the said Act of the present Session but not earlier than the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, as may be appointed by an order made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State (hereinafter referred to as "the appointed day"), and an application for the grant is approved by the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the scheme before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one;
(ii) authorising the making, in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of an engine for a vessel, of a grant in pursuance of such a scheme otherwise than

to an individual who satisfies the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, that he is, or is to be, a working owner of the vessel, in a case where an application for the grant is approved by the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the scheme before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, the operation of the engine does not involve the consumption of coal, the engine is installed in place of one whose operation did involve the consumption of coal and the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, are satisfied that the contract for the supply of the engine was made after the appointed day;
(iii) authorising the treating, as part of the expenditure incurred in the acquisition for a vessel of a new engine which is installed in place of one which furnished motive power to other machinery of the vessel but is itself not designed to furnish motive power to that other machinery, of expenditure incurred in carrying out such work for the provision of motive power to that other machinery as is necessitated by the change of engine, in a case where the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, are satisfied that the contract for the supply of the new engine was made after the appointed day;
(b) the payment, out of money provided by Parliament (in addition to the sum of ten million pounds which, by virtue of subsection (4) of section five of the said Act of 1953 and the White Fish Subsidy (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1956, is authorised to be applied in the making, under that section, of payments by way of subsidy in respect of white fish), of sums not exceeding in the aggregate seven million pounds or such greater amount (not exceeding nine million pounds) as may be prescribed by an order made, with the approval of the Treasury, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State, to be applied in the making, under that section as amended by the said Act of the present Session, of such payments as aforesaid and in the making of payments by way of the subsidy in respect of herring provided for by the last-mentioned Act.

Resolution agreed to.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF SCOPE OF GRANTS UNDER SS. 1 AND 6 OF 1 & 2 ELIZ. 2. c. 17.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)—in page 1, line 23, to leave out "appointed day" and insert "seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six"—is out of order as it is beyond the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "unless", insert:
the vessel conforms to such conditions as shall be prescribed regarding the standard of crew accommodation to be provided in any vessel in respect of which such a grant is made and".
During the Second Reading of the Bill, which was very warmly welcomed by my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and many other hon. Members who spoke from both sides of the House to the standard of accommodation of crews. It seemed to us that if the Government had to spend the amount of money which they are proposing to do in giving grants to fishing vessel owners—both the skipper-owners and the owners who are not sea-going owners, that is to say, generally speaking, the companies—some regard ought to be had in the Bill to the conditions under which the crews work.
I think it would be agreed by everyone on both sides of the Committee that during the last 30 years, which covers my connection with the fishing industry, the standard of crew accommodation has been very greatly improved. As I said on Second Reading, when I first made contact with the herring drifter fleet in Yarmouth, I was really appalled at the crew accommodation. Today one can see

in my own port of Lowestoft wonderful trawlers being turned out of our shipbuilding yards, and one of the most impressive elements is the regard that is being paid to the accommodation and the amenities for crews.
This Bill is primarily concerned with conversion, and that obviously means in this connection the conversion of engines from steam to oil. Although that, of course, is the major object of the Bill, designed to eliminate from the trawler fleets and the herring fleets particularly the old steam drifter and the old steam trawler, it is related only to one section of the vessel—to the drifting power, motive power and catching power of the vessel.
I am sure that we on this side of the Committee and, in fact, all hon. Members—because this is not a political point —will agree that if we are to have a contented fishing fleet, and if the object of the Bill is to be pursued to its best ends, we must have not only the remuneration as provided for in the subsidy, but also a standard of amenities for the crews. Those of us who have known drifters and trawlers in the old days cannot possibly be satisfied that men should be asked to go to sea under those conditions when the industry is being subsidised out of public funds. The Amendment is the very modest one that where the regulations are put before the House, whether by Statutory Instrument or any other means as the Minister shall decide, some regard shall be paid to the amenities of the men who actually catch the fish.
It is very pleasant to sit in a nice office or to be in the market or in a fish monger's shop, but our concern is for the men who go to sea and catch the fish in all sorts of weather. Many of us know what fishing can be like in the winter months, particularly in stormy weather and in the ice of the northern waters of the North Sea, although this Bill does not concern those above a certain northern latitude. In any case, we all know that the conditions can be pretty rigorous. For that reason, we thought it wise to ask the Government to accept this quite reasonable Amendment to ensure that before the grant is paid they shall be satisfied by certain standards.
It is not our business to prescribe those standards. The Minister's Department


has had a long experience in the standard of amenities that are available today. When we look at a modern trawler or trawler drifter—if I may say so without undue modesty, those made in Lowestoft and those made for the Russian Government—we find a very high standard of amenities in the accommodation for the crew.
We do not want to make this too controversial a matter—I am sure that the Bill will achieve a great measure of acceptance on both sides of the House —but we should like to ask the Minister that when he considers the regulations which he proposes to lay before us some regard will be paid to the standard of comfort and the amenities for the crews who go to sea.
I am quite sure that it is the wish of all of us to have a contented and happy fishing fleet. It is not only the financial awards that will make for the success of this Bill. The Bill is to encourage the development of the near water and herring fishing fleets, and the mere changing of engines will not attract men. The idea of this Bill, if I may be permitted to say so, is to retain in the herring industry those men who would drift into the white fish part of the fishing fleets and who, once there, owing to the subsidy, would not come back. We want to secure not only the financial rewards but to ensure that the personal comfort and the amenities of the men shall be safeguarded.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment, which speaks for itself. Obviously, it is a beneficial one. It would not be right that public money should be advanced in respect of ships which were unfit for their purpose by reason of the lack of adequate accommodation for the crew. One would have thought that in drafting a Clause such as this, which provides that
No grant shall be made in pursuance of a scheme under… the principal Act in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of a vessel unless an application for the grant is approved by the Authority or the Board … 
some standard would have been provided for the Authority or the Board. No standard is provided, and that again is a defect in the Clause.
The Amendment provides a standard which would guide the Authority and the

Board. We merely ask that there should be a standard of crew accommodation which will be satisfactory to the crew and, ipso facto, satisfactory to the owner of the vessel, who naturally wants to have a vessel which is suitable for the purpose for which it is provided. Therefore, it seems to me that the words, which we seek to have incorporated, complete and round off the Clause. There is a defect in the Clause, the words make good the defect, and I urge the Minister to take that view and accept the Amendment.

Mr. James Hoy: I should like to support the Amendment, though I must say I am disappointed that we are not discussing the first Amendment on the Order Paper, which is designed to make the appointed day the 7th November, 1956. I am sorry that that Amendment should have been cut out, but I would not dare to challenge a Ruling by the Chair. I hope, however, that the Minister has not thought that I have forgotten the point. I hope that he also has not forgotten it.
The present Amendment has my wholehearted approval, but it is only right to say that the owners have certainly paid considerable attention to crew accommodation in the latest trawlers. I know that in my own area, where a considerable amount of new building has been done, even without the assistance of the Government in some cases, large sums of money have been spent in making these improvements. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart) has visited one or two places in the area, and I am sure that he will agree with me. We are not, therefore, criticising what has been done.
We seek, through the Amendment, to improve the accommodation in the old trawlers. No one can gainsay the fact that a considerable improvement must take place if we are to retain men in the fishing industry. One of the ways in which we can do that is to ensure that when grants are made the owners are asked to pay some attention to the accommodation provided for their crews. In so doing, the owners will be well paid, because there is no more contented man than the one who has his comfort looked after, especially in the arduous conditions in which men work in this industry. The


Amendment, though extremely modest, would make for a much more successful operation of the industry itself.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I support the Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and so warmly supported by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). In recent years much has been done to improve the welfare of the workers generally. I have no fishermen or trawlermen in my constituency, but I have always been interested in industrial health and welfare. The Bill is designed to help, first of all, with the conversion of these ships so that the industry will be able to do its work better than it has been able to do it up to now.
There is, however, another important point. We must ensure not only that we keep the men who are already in the industry, but that we do everything possible to attract others to it. This is heavy and arduous work which calls for bravery and courage on the part of the men who are employed in it. Since that is the case, we should try to make the conditions for the men working in the industry as good as they can be made.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leith that we cannot criticise in any way the great steps that have been taken by the trawler owners who, in recent years, have been able to build new vessels for this work. We give them all possible praise, but by means of the Amendment we are trying to ensure that if Government money is to be spent to help the industry there shall be attached to that grant the condition that improvements shall be made in order that these men's work shall be more congenial than it is at present.

7.15. p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): This is an important matter, and I am very glad that it has been raised and ventilated in this way. I realise the importance hon. Members opposite attach to it. It is very important that the conditions in which these men work should be adequate, and

I am very glad that tributes have been paid to work done in this direction on new vessels. It is very encouraging to know that that work has been done and that its importance has been recognised.
I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, not because the Government disagree with the feelings expressed by hon. Members opposite, but because the Amendment would not do exactly what hon. Members have in mind. The Amendment would be directed towards new vessels, which are the very ones that are being dealt with already. I am advised that the Amendment in these terms would affect new vessels only.
In any case, this matter is already covered in other ways. A similar Amendment was proposed in Committee on the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, but it was withdrawn when the assurance was given at that time that conditions of crew accommodation would be provided for in the statutory scheme governing conditions of grant.
Section 9 (3) of the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955, accordingly prescribes that vessels should conform with any standards laid down under the Merchant Shipping Acts and should make such provision for the accommodation of officers and crew as the White Fish Authority may require in conformity with the best modern practice, appropriate to the class of vessel concerned, for sleeping, messing and sanitary accommodation, medical or first-aid facilities, store rooms, catering facilities and other accommodation.
That was what was done in that case, and a similar provision was made in the scheme governing grants to herring vessels. Any amendment of these grant schemes would require the approval of both Houses. I hope, therefore, hon. Members agree that it is unnecessary to make specific legislative provision for something which is being done already.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. Member clarify his earlier point about new vessels? Our point is that these conversion grants really make old vessels new vessels from a catching point of view, and surely what is applicable to entirely new hulls is equally applicable to a grant towards making an old vessel into a new vessel. I do not think that is an academic point. It is one which has a great deal of validity. I hope the


Minister will have another look at the matter before he finally commits himself to reject the spirit of the Amendment. I say nothing about the words of the Amendment—subject, of course, to the Front Bench discipline to which we on this side of the Committee submit.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. We are not rejecting the spirit of the Amendment. All I was saying was that its form of words relates the proposal to new vessels rather than to conversions. I was saying that we are in any case dealing with the matter in another way. I was pointing out that this has already been done under the previous Act, and we are proposing to do the same sort of thing under this Bill when it is an Act.
It will be done under the Scheme rather than under the Act, because the Scheme gives greater flexibility. There is a very wide variation in the types of vessels, and, in practice, under the Scheme it is possible to make proper provision for each vessel. We think that that is a more appropriate method of procedure and that it is the best way in which this can be done. It is for that reason that I was advising the Committee not to accept the Amendment. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, for we are entirely agreed about what it is desirable to achieve.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I hastily intervene to show that there is accord between the Front Bench and the back benches, and to say that I appreciate the explanation which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made. I think it is clear that we all share the anxiety to see that what is the common objective is attained in the best possible way.

Mr. Edward Evans: In view of the assurance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out "three-tenths" and to insert "two-fifths".
I feel a salty tang in the air and I am among people who have got the use of their sea legs, so I speak with circumspection.

By this Amendment we are not seeking to make a partisan point. We are not questioning the amount of the global sum. Our object is to see whether we can make a better use of the global sum. I say that we do not seek to make any party capital out of this because I remember that when the principal Act was going through Committee the Committee as a whole persuaded the Government to change their views about the provisions which they had proposed.
The question we are concerned with is whether it would not be better to afford a greater inducement to achieving the purposes that the Bill is meant to further; in other words, whether the benefit should not.be spread rather more thickly, though that would, of course, mean that the grant would be used on fewer occasions. I claim no special virtue for the specific proposal in the Amendment. What we are trying to do is to open for discussion the question whether or not the Government are right in fixing the figure at three-tenths; whether that ought not, in changed circumstances, now to be reconsidered and possibly altered.
We are concerned about the overall interest burden upon the working owner. We have to pay attention to two factors, the interest rates and the proportion of the grant. I should have thought that in the light of present circumstances there was a case at least for reconsidering the grant, for not merely accepting the position as it is under the principal Act. The major question is what is the interest burden to be?
I put this tentatively, not dogmatically, but I think that the very fact that we have the Bill means that, at any rate, we are not altogether satisfied with the progress we have made, and that we realise that more has to be done and that more has to be done as quickly as we can accomplish it. I appreciate that we are, of course, governed by the building capacity. We have to satisfy ourselves that the present capacity is being fully utilised. I appreciate that any permissive limit is the maximum limit. If it is to be an inducement it must be, and the Government are bound to make it so.
In the rather changed circumstances, and because we have this Bill before us, I think that there is a case for a rather greater inducement to be offered than we


have offered hitherto. That is the reason for the Amendment. It is also to elicit the views of the Government.

Mr. Edward Evans: As I shall try to show on another Amendment, if it is called, as I hope it will be, the fishing industry is now going through a very anxious time indeed. The rising cost of gear and oil, of wages and everything else, calls for the greatest consideration by the Government of the situation of the small owner.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know that the lot of the small man is a very difficult one today. That is not only because of the cost of conversion and because the grants are not over generous. It is because of the alarming cost of gear, the alarming costs of day-to-day routine work. It is also because of the spasmodic character of catches, particularly of herring. The catches, particularly of the East Coast fishermen, in the last two years have been catastrophic.
For these reasons, we feel that we should like to press the Government to consider our figure of two-fifths, indeed, to accept it and so give an additional incentive to the men who have been the backbone of the herring industry. It was the small owner-skippers of the East Coast and in Scotland who were the prime catchers of herring. Those men are gradually being ousted by the larger interests. We hope that the Government will have another look at these figures and see whether they cannot raise theirs. I am no mathematician and I am a little baffled for the moment by calculating which is the larger, three-tenths or two-fifths. I hope that the Government will give me the benefit of the doubt and credit me with asking for the larger.

Mr. Godber: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in his difficulty. I would suggest that he reads the two amounts as 0.3 and 0.4 but that can be confusing, too—they have been called the "damned dots".
Since this Amendment was put on the Notice Paper we have given it the most sympathetic and careful consideration, because this is obviously a very important matter, particularly to the small working owner whom we are anxious to assist in any way we can. But it must

be recognised that while costs have risen —I admit that—this is a percentage grant. Therefore, the amount of grant varies in any case. It is important to bear that in mind. It seems to me that the present arrangement is fair, and that there is no reason why an owner should be insulated against all increases in costs. Although we help to some extent, we must keep a sense of proportion in this matter.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggested that the applications were slackening because the cost burden was too heavy. That is not in accord with our information. The present sign is that over the last two months the rate of application for engine grants has been higher than at any time since the scheme began. That is encouraging and it does not lead one to expect that there is any need for any extra action on our part.
7.30 p.m.
There is another point in that the Bill removes the upper cash limits imposed on grants by the 1953 Act. Limits are still imposed by the statutory grants scheme—for working owners it is £5,000 for new boats and £1,250 for engines—but under the Bill they may in future be varied by a statutory scheme if necessary. There is no indication that the present limits are reducing demand for building or new engines by working owners, but we would be fully prepared to consider them on their merits, if it were felt that they were inhibiting the demand.
In the light of that assurance, I ask that the Amendment should not be pressed, because the position at present is adequate and we have to keep a sense of proportion. We want to give all we can, but we think that the present arrangement is fair and reasonable.

Mr. Hoy: I do not think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary adequately replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). It may be true that at present the grants are sufficient, but the Parliamentary Secretary is bound to be aware of the considerable increase in costs in recent times. The fishing industry is now facing a further substantial increase in its day-to-day work on account of the proposed increase in the price of fuel oil. Considering


those things, can we have an assurance that the Minister has the authority to meet those matters?

Mr. Godber: I have pointed out that this is a percentage rate, so that as the costs go up the grants go up. This is a capital cost, and while it is true that it impinges on the day-to-day costs I think that capital items should be kept separate from the general working. I have said that we would be fully prepared to consider on its merits any case at a later stage for raising the ceiling which we have taken powers to do. I think that we are covered in that respect and we will look at the matter most sympathetically whenever necessary.

Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary both for what he said about applications and the assurance he has given. We are trying to make the best use of the grants which Parliament is providing. It appears that the position is satisfactory at the moment and I gather that we have the assurance that if the position deteriorates the Government will look at this again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after "February ", to insert:
 nor later than the thirtieth day of June".
The object of the Amendment is to make the appointed day reasonably certain "fore and aft"—if one may use that expression. It is made certain fore but not aft, because the Clause provides that the appointed day means:
…such day (whether before or after the passing of this Act but not earlier than the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven) as the Ministers may by order appoint.
However, the Minister may delay and, in that way, prejudice the fishing industry. It is obvious that contracts will have to be made to carry out the work envisaged by the Bill. The owners of the vessels will have to make contracts, and in the making of contracts they must have some certainty.
There is no certainty as the Clause stands, but that certainty would be provided if the Government accepted the Amendment, so that the dates would be

28th February at one end and 30th June at the other. I am quite willing to concede that this is a good little Bill as far as it goes. It is not perfect. It will be remembered that another Bill was presented last November and withdrawn on 27th February because of its defects. I submit that the Amendment will help this little Bill towards perfection.
I ask the Minister not to follow the precedents which he has so far followed in asking us to withdraw every Amendment as it came along. I am sure that he has tried to judge those Amendments on their merits, but he has not had full regard to their merits or he would have accepted them. I ask him judicially to consider this Amendment on its merits and to accept it.

Mr. Hoy: This Amendment will improve the Bill a little. It does not go far enough to meet my point of view, but I do not want to get out of order in dealing with that topic. We have made wonderful progress tonight. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of a case which may be omitted. When we were discussing this matter in November last year, I raised two instances, one of which affected my constituency, in which a grant was lost because of a difference of three days in the date laid down in the Bill.
In one case an owner had gone ahead at the request of the Minister—because earlier in the year the Minister had said that we must make progress and get conversions done and the fleet brought up to date. The man thought that the Minister meant it, and he got on with the job so quickly that he lost the grant. If people show initiative of that kind the Minister ought to do something to meet their needs. What my hon. and learned Friend is saying is that we should cover a similar type of case, that where the work is carried out by a particular date in June it should qualify for grant.
As the Minister has changed his dates from one Bill to another, I appeal to him to give a little flexibility to the respective authorities in these hardship cases so they can make awards to men who are not putting money into their pockets but taking money from their pockets and investing in the industry, modernising their boats, providing decent accommodation for their men and so improving the industry itself. The Minister


will be repaid tenfold if he will take action of that kind and for that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. Edward Evans: This is really a disciplinary Amendment, because in the Second Reading speech the Minister reiterated that it was his desire to state the appointed day as early as possible. We know how anxious the industry has been to get this date fixed. This puts a limit on the dilatoriness of the Minister —to use that expression with great respect—in putting off the appointed day. We are asking that the appointed day shall be no later than the date suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). No great concession is asked. If the Minister cannot make up his mind by 30th June, I do not know when we will get the grants paid.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will not press the Amendment too far. I am not sure that he would be wise to do so, because I am not sure that he has the full support of his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who said that he did not think the Amendment went far enough. I believe in discipline, but I prefer self-discipline, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to discipline myself over the date rather than try to force the date on me.
There is no difference between us about what we want to do. We want to make this part of the Bill in particular effective at the earliest possible date. At the present time, our oil supply position is improving, but I think all hon. Gentlemen would agree with me that the Middle East position is still in a very unsettled state, and I do not feel that we are yet in a position to fix a precise date when supplies of oil will be fully adequate to our needs. I hope it will be possible to fix an appointed day which will lie ahead within a matter of weeks and not in a matter of months ahead. I think that it would be unfortunate if we made a legislative provision so specific as to mention a precise date today and then some untoward development were to occur which would make it impossible to keep that date.

Mr. Willey: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could agree to a date and thus put the burden on himself to come down to the House—I am not suggesting that he could do that under this Amendment, but if he felt like that—and ask for the postponement of the date by order. At any rate, he would have to come and face the House in that case, instead, as he might, postpone and postpone his obligation to come to the House and explain it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has used the expression "a precise date". That is not what we are asking him to do. There is roughly a period of three months in which the right hon. Gentleman can make up his mind when to fix the appointed day, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, if he cannot do it in three months, when will he do it? I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that contracts depend upon it. The trawler owners will have to make hard and fast contracts with certain people and with specific ingredients in them. We are not asking the Minister to be fixed like that. We give him three months in which to make up his mind.

Mr. Amory: What the hon. and learned Member is suggesting is that a specific and final date should be put in before which the appointed day must be fixed. That is what I mean by a specific date, but, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, it would be possible, I suppose, to make a legislative provision which could be extended by order. I think that would be making heavy weather of this particular problem. We have said on three occasions previously—I said it on Second Reading, and I have repeated it today—that it is our intention that this Bill should be effective at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Edward Evans: This is a question of contracts, and the prices ruling today might not rule for very long. We know that we are in a very grave industrial situation today. The right hon. Gentle-knows very well that, from the date of the signing of the contract, the date of the operative effectiveness of the vessel may be three or four months later, and, surely, he cannot be so pessimistic about the oil situation as all that. I think we have put up a very reasonable Amendment, and that we should get some sort of assurance


from the Minister that he has that point in mind, because the men went to sign the contracts as soon as possible in order to get the best terms they can.

Mr. Amory: I do realise that very clearly, but I know that the position is so uncertain that it would be most unwise, however hopeful I am—and I am hopeful —of being able to fix this appointed day in the near future, to fix such a limit. It is conceivable and possible that it might not be possible to keep to it. It is conceivable and possible that it might, in certain eventualities, have to be postponed, and the hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned three months, which is quite a considerable time. One cannot be sure, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will on reflection see the possibility of that happening and will accept the assurances we have given that it is our definite intention to fix this date at the earliest possible moment we can, and as soon as we can see our oil supply prospects sufficiently assured to make it a successful and safe thing to do. I hope that with that assurance the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that it will not be necessary to press this Amendment to the point of dividing.

7.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: We have tried to be most accommodating on this side of the Committee on the other Amendments, and we have accepted the assurances that have been given. However, on this Amendment we find it very difficult to accept this assurance. Here, we are asking for a date not later than 30th June, 1957, but that does not mean that on the 1st of July, 1957, there will be a great rush for extra oil for these trawlers. That is the date when the trawler owners can begin to make contracts in order to have the necessary work carried out on their trawlers. I do not know how long that would take, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) suggested that it might be three or four months. Indeed, it might be longer than that.
I have tried to link that up with the statements made on the oil situation in the House and the suggestion that has been made by other responsible Ministers in the House about oil, that if we add four months after July everything should be rosy as far as the oil situation in this country is concerned. It seems to me that

we are not asking the Minister in this Amendment for anything that he should not be able to give us today.
There is the further point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey), when he suggested that if this date is put in here it will give us some assurance; and we are not unreasonable people. If the Minister discovers that, for some very good and valid reasons, he cannot operate as from that date, he has only to come to the House and give us the reasons. If the reasons are valid and good, I am certain that they will be accepted by Members on this side. For the reasons which I have adduced, I again ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I should like to reinforce the appeal which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has just made, because this is a matter of some importance and there has been a good deal of uncertainty about it.
May I make this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? We can expect that this Bill may receive the Royal Assent before Easter. Could we have a statement by the right hon. Gentleman when we resume immediately after Easter telling us what the position will be? At present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North has said, we have had a good deal of buoyancy from the Paymaster-General about the prospects in the oil situation. I think this industry is entitled to know where it stands, so as to be able to proceed at the earliest possible moment with this work; otherwise, there will be a growing loss of confidence. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman at any rate work with us in trying to contrive a formula which will enable him at the earliest possible moment to make it quite clear what the position is and give an assurance to the Committee that that in fact will be done?

Mr. Amory: I am anxious to do anything I possibly can to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because there is nothing between us at all. What I am sure would be unwise would be to make a specific provision, or any limit, in this Bill.
Short of doing that, I will do everything I possibly can. I am anxious to help people who are thinking of availing themselves of these grants. I shall be


very ready to accept applications for grants straight away; to consider them and try to get everything done which can be done in advance, so that when the matter becomes effective there need be no further delay. It should help, to start with, to say that we will receive applications.
I will consider whether there is anything I can do in regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). He suggested that I might make a statement, about Easter, as to the prospects. I shall certainly consider doing that. By Easter I hope that I may be in a position to fix the appointed day. At present, may I say that if I am not in a position to fix the appointed day by Easter I will seek an opportunity of making some statement in the House explaining what is the position and what the prospects appear to be?
I want to meet the hon. Member's point, which was a very fair one, that these conversions will take some time in any case. I agree that we do not want any unnecessary delay in the placing of contracts. The hon. Members have made their points very effectively, and we must try to find some way of easing the position if we can and of making it as easy as possible for those who are anxious to take advantage of the grant not to lose or waste a day.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I very much regret that, conscientious and able as the Minister is, he has not addressed his mind to the fundamental argument in support of the Amendment, which is that the owners will have to make contracts, and those contracts will involve agreements between the parties upon specific points. They must be precise and definite. we are merely asking that the Clause should be so tightened up as to make it precise and definite also. The Minister will realise that at the one end it is precise and definite—" not earlier than 28th February "—but at the other end it is not precise and definite, because no date is given. The appointed day means:
 such day… as the Minister may by order appoint.
The Minister may by order appoint 31st December, 1957.
However excellent his intentions may be, he is putting it completely outside

the power of the owners to make contracts. That is the essential and fundamental point, and it is a very important one. It goes to the root of the usefulness of the Bill, and I beg the Minister to address his mind to it. I must tell him that I shall not withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I want to raise a point in connection with the working owner. As far as I could understand my right hon. Friend, he said that the matter was under consideration. Many of us in the past have raised the question of a working owner who, to all intents and purposes, is the working owner of more than one vessel. Subsection (3, b) reads:
 in any other case, one-quarter of the said expenditure.
Will that apply to the family of such a working owner, or will he be deemed to be a working owner in more than one case? Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to look into that point. I may say that I do not expect an answer.

Mr. Godber: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kindness in not expecting an answer to what is a tricky point. If he had only kept talking a little longer it might have been easier for me to give him one. My initial reaction would be to say that only one boat would be allowable in the case of a one working owner. I do not think that it would be reasonable—certainly at first glance—to say that a working owner could be presumed to be working in more than one boat at once.
If we were to accept the other contention we should be very much widening the matter. I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend this—I realise the point of his intervention. I believe that I have stated the position correctly but if I am wrong, I shall be happy to advise him in due course.

Mr. Howard: Suppose the man has sons, and has more than one boat, and on one day he goes to sea in one boat and on another day in another boat? Why should he not be a working owner in both cases? He may go to sea on a Monday in one boat, with two of his sons, and on the Tuesday in another boat. He is still going to sea.

Mr. Godber: I have been considering this matter further since I replied to my hon. Friend, and I should think that he may well be right. He has to some extent convinced me that there is a case for such a working owner. Provided that he goes to sea in each of his two boats it might well be said that he qualifies. I may have been over-hasty in what I said, and I think that in the case which my hon. Friend now quotes he may well be right. But I do not think that we could continue this process ad infinitum. I should have thought that two boats would be as much as one could reasonably expect any working owner to be working in himself—and he must go to sea in each boat in order to qualify.

Mr. Hoy: This is a very interesting announcement. Supposing there are four boats. It would appear that the owner would then qualify for twelve-tenths. It reminds me of the man who, under Scottish agricultural legislation, received 110 per cent. of his outlay. Surely the Minister can give us a better answer than that. If what he says applies to two boats, would it not apply to three or four? If not, can the Minister tell us where we can find a definition in respect of this matter? It must be laid down somewhere. If there Minister can say that a working owner will qualify if he has two boats there must be something in the Bill which says so.

Mr. Godber: Each case is considered on its merits. I have tried to make it clear that I think that two boats would be the limit. It would not be a case of anybody getting 120 per cent.; it would be a case of 30 per cent. in respect of each boat, and there would be double the expense with two boats. I should have thought that two would be a reasonable figure to fix as the limit. I hope that the Committee will accept that explanation and will consider two as the maximum number. I would emphasise that the working owner must go to sea regularly in each boat in order to qualify.

Mr. Howard: I thank my hon. Friend for his further consideration of the matter.

Mr. Willey: I feel that we must make it known that we are in some doubt about this matter. What about the man with four sons? I do not see the logical reason for making two the limit. If I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, the qualification would appear

also to be related to the number in the family. I hope that during our further consideration of the Bill we shall receive a clearer ruling on this matter.

Mr. Godber: I think that it is quite clear. I hope that I can carry the hon. Member with me in regard to this rather involved family tree. It must be one business, and if it is it does not matter how many sons the working owner has. He will receive consideration only in respect of one or two boats. If each son owned his boat separately there would be separate businesses, and that would be a different matter. I do not want to fragment families in this way, but I must make it clear that in such a case there would be separate businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(EXTENSION OF WHITE FISH SUBSIDY.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after "matter", to insert: "including the provision of fishing gear".
I am delighted that the Long Title of the Bill enables me to move this Amendment. The argument is plain to every hon. Member who knows anything of the fishing industry or who is interested in it. The provision of grants for conversion covers only a part of the necessary adjuncts to an effective fishing vessel. We all know that they are onerous enough. In fact, in comparison with pre-war times they are dreadful. One of the most disquieting features of the industry today is the alarming growth in the cost of gear of all kinds. Added to that, we are to have another increase in the price of oil. So, as a capital expenditure in the running of a fishing vessel, the cost of gear is just as important as the cost of conversion from steam to oil.
I move this Amendment with diffidence because I know that the Minister had not envisaged that gear could come into the Bill. I am encouraged, however, by reading the Long Title, which states that the Bill seeks
… to provide a subsidy in respect of … and for purposes connected with…
an effective fishing industry.
I hope that the Minister will examine this matter. He has an ingenious mind


and perhaps he can introduce a provision to allow grants for the conversion from steam to oil to cover, also, a grant for the increased cost of gear. The issue is plain. There is no need to elaborate it. We all know that the cost of gear has gone up by 800 per cent. since pre-war days. We are faced now not only with the increase of 40 per cent. in the cost of oil on 30th December last, but also, which is the purpose of the Bill, with a rise of another £1 a ton—for what reason I fail to see —in the price of oil for the fishing fleet. That is disastrous. We know very well that there will be a considerable lay-up in the fishing fleets when this new charge comes in.
For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will consider whether he can accommodate us in this matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Amendment. I think that these words should be included and that they are necessary for the intelligent administration of the Clause, which makes provision for the payment of grants.
 … for the purpose of catching such fish and landing them in the United Kingdom or any such other matter…
The words, "any such other matter" are so wide as to give no guide to the authority whatsoever. The words which it is sought to insert by this Amendment will give a necessary guide. They indicate that the words "such other matter" are to include the provision of fishing gear.
As my hon. Friend said, the cost of fishing gear and other things that fishermen use has gone up enormously. We live in a period of inflation. The cost of living keeps rising steadily and so does the cost of oil and fishing gear. It is right that the owners should have that fact taken into account in this Clause.
On the other hand, it is wrong that there should be put into this Clause words so wide in character as the words, "such other matter." They give no guide to the administering authority and it would find great difficulty in administering the Clause. It might ask, "What are these matters? If we give a grant for this, we may be at fault and if we give a grant for that we may be at fault."
Now we are proposing to insert these words, which are clear, concise and

expressive, to include the price of fishing gear. They give a necessary guide and they improve both the Clause and the Bill.

Mr. Godber: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) described the words of the Amendment as clear, concise and expressive. I think that those words may also be applied to the speeches which he makes on this subject.
There is, however, a danger in inserting words such as these into the Clause. To do so would seem to give undue emphasis to a particular thing and might throw doubt on some other matters which one might wish to draw within the ambit of those words. In any case, it is an academic point, because the Clause as it reads at present would give power for payments in respect of fishing gear. There is no doubt about that and I give that assurance. The point is covered in the words of the Bill. Therefore, were it decided to make a grant for gear, there would be no difficulty in that respect.
This Clause is dealing not so much with grants but the method of payment of subsidies both for white fish and herring. So far, the subsidy for white fish has been limited to payments in respect of landings of fish or voyages made for the purpose of catching fish. A particular form has not yet been decided for herring, but the suggestions of the Herring Industry Board and the producers associations favour a subsidy payment per day at sea, like the white fish subsidy paid to near and middle water vessels; but no suggestion of a subsidy on fishing gear has been made.
The total sum to be paid out would not be increased by doing this. It is a matter of finding the most equitable and the fairest way of paying out the subsidy. If this suggestion is put forward, it would be possible to do it in this way, but, so far, consideration has been directed to doing it in the same way as in the case of white fish which appears to be working satisfactorily. I should have thought, therefore, that that is the most likely way for this to happen. I realise the importance of the point which the hon. Member raised, but in view of the assurance I have given may I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) is not a Parliamentary draftsman, but allowing for that, I should like to congratulate him on his ingenuity in seeking the only opportunity that he had for raising this matter. He has elicited an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary which is not unwelcome.
My hon. Friend was seeking to emphasise the importance of the burden of the increased cost of gear by including it in the Bill. It does not look as though the Parliamentary Secretary will assist him in that endeavour, but the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he appreciates the point which my hon. Friend has emphasised.

Sir James Henderson Stewart: May I ask whether my hon. Friend would assist me, because I do not quite understand what he said? This Clause deals with the method of assessing the amount of the subsidy to be paid for the landing of white fish. There is also a similar Clause, dealing with the amount to be paid for the landing of herring. Until now the white fish subsidy, taking into account not only the inshore but the other boats as well, has been based partly on the consideration of the length of the voyage made and partly on the consideration of how much fish was landed. As I understand, the purpose of including in the Bill the words
 or any such other matter 
was because we thought that the two fishing boards might wish to incorporate a third consideration. If I understood my hon. Friend aright, he did not say that there was a third consideration. It was only to be a matter of the days at sea. I would be grateful if he would explain this matter.

Mr. Hoy: I do not think that there will be any misapprehension. The whole case of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) was that it was essential for the boats to be equipped with gear but that the cost of the gear was prohibitive, and that that might prevent fishing being done in the way we want it to be done. I understood the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that this matter was fully provided for in the drafting of the Clause. That is the sole reason why the Joint Parliamentary

Secretary asked us not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: That is correct. Gear would be covered by the Clause, if it is desired to cover it. There is only a certain amount of money and we have to decide the best and fairest way of portioning it out. White fish is paid for in respect of the time spent at sea and the amount of fish landed. No decision has yet been reached about herring. We are not excluding any other method if it is felt desirable, but we expect that the plan for herring will be much the same as for white fish. There is provision which covers any third, fourth or other method, including payment for gear.

Mr. Edward Evans: In view of the assurances given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, although I am disappointed with his reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(HERRING SUBSIDY.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out:
 with the approval of the Treasury ".
I move this Amendment to show that I still have much good will towards the Minister. I am endeavouring to help him. If he spurns my help, I say at once that I am not prepared to reinforce my help by having a Division.
No one objects that the Treasury should have a voice in determining the global sum, but we do not think it right and proper—and it is about time that someone should say so—that the Treasury should have its approval to these schemes written into a Bill. I know what it means in practice: an increase of the bureaucracy the whole time. The Treasury will get a herring man. It has an advantage, of course, when it comes to establishment. If they lose their battle with the Ministry they make sure they get a better herring man than the Ministry has so that they have the final word.
I am sure that the Committee is content to leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman with the usual Governmental responsibility that an Order has to be laid. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at once accept my good offices and this Amendment. I have had previous successes in having Amendments


accepted, but on the last occasion I regret that when I offered this friendly assistance to the right hon. Gentleman he was quite uncharitable and rejected it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: When my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answered on the last Amendment he said that he did not want to insert words because he did not wish to be too particular. If that be the case, could not we do without the approval of the Treasury?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Among the words on the second line of the Clause are:
 a continuous and plentiful supply of herring,
not a continuous and plentiful supply of money. If these were the words, I could understand the Treasury being dragged, however unwillingly, into the Clause. It is being brought in, not in connection with a plentiful supply of money but with the preparation of a scheme.
I fail to see why the Treasury should be brought into it at all. Why cannot the Minister have sufficient independence of character and confidence in his drafting to do the scheme himself without bringing the Treasury into it? Exhorting the Minister to show a little courage and to throw off the shackles of the Treasury, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is so overcome with gratitude at the help that has been offered him from the Opposition that he is quite speechless. He has asked me to say a word on his behalf in recognition of the kindness and forethought shown by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and other hon. Members in seeking to assist my right hon. Friend in this way.
In spite of these efforts, he does not, however, feel that the Amendment is necessary or desirable. The Treasury has the responsibility to see that schemes for the expenditure of public money are prepared with due regard to efficiency and economy. That does not mean that the Treasury dictates policy. Although we shall require to get the consent of the Treasury we feel sure, because of the cordial contacts that exist among Government Departments, that we shall have no difficulty at all.

Mr. Hoy: This answer is disappointing. It explains why we have now the

Financial Secretary for the Treasury with us. I could not understand what had brought about his arrival, but it is obvious that he had no great faith in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or in the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and was taking care that they did not give way on the Amendment. I know the Minister; if we can trust him, so can the Treasury. He might have given us a better answer. It is very disappointing. It is his last opportunity to accept a really first-class Amendment. If he refuses it, there is nothing more we can do about it.

Mr. Willey: I wonder what brought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here. We all sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his very difficult task, especially with the Treasury overlooking and demanding its right of approval of all that he does. If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept our help, I shall have no alternative but reluctantly to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Amory: I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his very helpful attitude. Consistency is a virtue, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been almost completely consistent in their helpful attitude. I assure them that my relations with my colleagues in the Treasury are so close and harmonious that I would not dream of putting forward a scheme which had not the approval of my right hon. Friends at the Treasury. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North for his most helpful and friendly intentions.

Mr. Willey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS BY WAY OF WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John MacLeod: The Minister pointed out that the scheme was still under consideration, so I hope it will not be too late to make one or two points as I have in my constituency some of the smaller inshore fishermen. I hope that in the


discussions which are taking place they will not be browbeaten by the "big boys" in any way, but that their case will be duly considered. I also hope——

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member is referring to Clause 4.

Mr. MacLeod: I want to see that the maximum amount of grants go to herring fishermen under the scheme. The Minister wants to see that we have a healthy fishing industry, so I hope, Sir Gordon, that I may raise some points which will help the Minister to see that the grants are given in a satisfactory manner.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that this Clause refers only to the maximum limit.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

RENT BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Report [20th March] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Bridlington, [copy laid before the House, 14th March], approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Lutterworth, [copy laid before the House, 14th March], approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Thorne, [copy laid before the House, 14th March], approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

PETROL STATIONS (RATING VALUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: After the immensely successive and very speedy excitements of the last few minutes, perhaps we might consider in calm—not only in calm, but also almost in solitude—the rating for valuation purposes of petrol filling stations. I wish to raise this problem which came to my notice in connection with a particular constituency case. It was the case of my constituent, Mr. H. L. Baird of Andover, whose appeal to the Lands Tribunal is now sub judice and to which I do not now wish to refer. I do not wish to argue against a particular case but against the general principle of the way in which petrol stations are assessed for the purpose of finding their gross rateable value.
I wish to refer to the case of Mr. Baird because of the method used by the Inland Revenue valuation officer at the appeal by my constituent at a valuation court held in Andover in January, which was fully quoted in the issue of the Andover Advertiser of 11th January this year. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I wish to quote from the report in that newspaper what the valuation officer, Mr. D. W. Wand, said on that occasion. That newspaper stated that Mr. Wand
referred to a method used by valuation officers when they assessed garages, businesses, which he thought were among the most difficult to rate. The officers used to value the buildings, the storage tanks and the forecourt, and 'that was the answer'. 'Now we value the buildings and estimate the throughput of petrol and apply prices to that throughput'. Mr. Wand's 'price list' was: for every 50,000 gallons the rate is £2 each thousand; 50,000 to 100,000 gallons £2 10s. each thousand; from 100,000 to 150,000 gallons £3 each thousand; and for over 150,000 £3 10s. each thousand.
In other words, the Inland Revenue officer stated at that valuation court that Inland Revenue officers formerly valued the site, the amenities and fittings of the petrol station and then, to quote Mr. Wand, "That was the answer". Now, according to Mr. Wand:
We value the buildings and estimate the throughput of petrol and apply prices to that throughput.

I wish to ask my hon. Friend why the method was altered, when the method was altered, and whether the alteration was published or done purely in a hole-in-the-corner method?
I suggest that to assess the rateable value of petrol retail pumps upon the throughput of petrol is grossly unfair, first because it is almost the only type of business which is rated upon throughput or turnover or total production. If I were to open a store for the selling of toys or clothing, my store would be rated for rateable value upon the building which I occupied, upon the site which I occupied, upon how likely it was to attract trade and therefore how popular it would be, and upon what its rent might be. My store would be assessed upon the fittings, the amenities and so on. But it would not be assessed upon the amount of clothing or toys which I sold.
Turning to a business about which I have some knowledge, where profit is a very small margin of total turnover, such as a stockbroker's business, we find that a stockbroker's office is rated for valuation purposes upon the type of office that it is, upon its floor space and upon the site which the office occupies. It is not rated upon turnover, which in a business with a very low percentage profit on turnover would obviously be grossly unfair. Yet here, irrespective of the rate of profit which is earned upon the turnover, upon the throughput of petrol, the Inland Revenue has apparently decided—a decision applied almost only to this type of business—that retail petrol stations shall be rated almost mainly upon the throughput of the petrol which they have sold.
The second reason I believe this method of assessment to be grossly unfair is that throughput does not depend solely on the station which one takes over. I should have thought that one of the basic ideas of rating was that the rateable value of a building was the same for whatever business purpose that building was used, no matter how great the success or the failure of the owner of that business. Throughput does not depend simply upon the excellent position of the site. It does not just depend upon the number of buildings upon it, or upon the amenities, or even upon the fittings. It depends first of all upon the initiative and the enterprise of the man


running that business, for instance whether he goes out to get business, whether perhaps he stocks other things besides petrol which people will pull in to buy, whether he gets a licence to sell cigarettes, whether he does repairs. Throughput depends, first of all, very largely upon initiative and enterprise.
It depends, secondly, upon the service which is given. When I have found a garage which has given me good service —if people have rushed out to clean my windscreen and have polished it, if they have asked whether the car needed air or water and if they have looked whether I needed oil—I have made a mental note to try to call at that garage again if I happen to be passing. But if they did not bother about my windscreen and if, when I asked them to check my tyres, they replied, "There is the machine; you can do it yourself," I have made a mental note not to return there. Throughput therefore depends upon the service given.
Thirdly, throughput depends largely upon the hours when a business is open. Not very far from my constituency there is a petrol station which as far as I am concerned is permanently shut. It is virtually never open at week-ends. Frankly, when I pass down that road, however much I need petrol—and I hope I never need it so badly that I have to stop within the next mile—I do not slow down at that petrol station because it seems to me likely that it will remain shut.
Let us take the extreme example of two petrol stations within half-a-mile of each other on a good stretch of one of our main roads at a time when there is no petrol rationing. The owner or manager of one petrol station may say to himself on a Saturday afternoon, "I am going off to play football", or "I will take my family into the local town to do the shopping and to go to the market ". He may also say, "I do not open on a Sunday because I like to play golf that day". His turnover will not be as great as that of the man who is open all the week-end and stays open as long as possible to pick up the maximum amount of trade. Throughput depends not only upon the site but upon the hours which the garage proprietor or manager is prepared to stay open.
Finally, throughput can depend very largely on the personal contacts of the

owner or manager of the garage. After all, selling petrol is like doing most other sorts of business, in which we know that personal contacts can mean a great deal. If a garage manager has become friendly with the manager or the owner of a fleet of lorries, so that those lorries make a regular point of filling up at his garage every time they pass, he has, of course, a better business than if he merely sits down and does not attempt to go out to get that sort of trade. Throughput depends on the personal contacts, initiative, enterprise, service and hours of opening of the manager or owner of the garage. And those are things with which, I contend, rating valuation has nothing whatever to do.
In addition to these points, I submit that an assessment for rating purposes on throughput is unfair, particularly in view of the table of progressive charges given by Mr. Wand and quoted in the Andover Advertiser. Thus, if we take the lowest charge, that up to 50,000 gallons, the rateable value would be £2 per thousand; between 50,000 and 100,000 gallons it would be £2 10s., and between 100,000 and 150,000 gallons it would be £3 per thousand gallons.
This particular progression completely ignores labour costs. One man may be able to run a petrol station which sells up to 50,000 gallons a year, and cope with that in comfort. If the sales go up to 70,000 gallons he cannot cope with it himself, and has to employ a man to assist him. When a business gets to that awkward stage of expansion, when it is just too much for one man to manage and is not really big enough to pay for two men, it is a difficult time in the history of the expansion of that business.
Under the scheme drawn up by my hon. Friend's valuation officer, not only does the man have the difficulty in an expanding business of taking on and paying a man but, in addition, he moves up from the £2 to the £2 10s. per thousand gallon category, and his rateable value goes up from £100 to £175 by virtue of that relatively small, 40 per cent. increase in turnover—the profit on which is probably completely wiped out by the taking on of another man. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Wand's assessment, his rateable value goes up by 75 per cent. Even my hon. Friend cannot make me believe that that is right.
I suggest that the Inland Revenue is not even consistent in insisting on this method of turnover, or throughput, as a means of assessing rateable value. The Inland Revenue takes only the throughput on petrol. It does not take the turnover on spare parts sold, or the turnover on repairs done; and it does not, for one moment, take the throughput of the cigarettes and matches sold. Why not—if throughput is to be the peculiarity of the rating assessment of garages?
Basically, what the Inland Revenue is doing is putting an extra tax on success. Turnover has a direct relationship with profits. The bigger the turnover, then, roughly speaking, the bigger the profits. And if the profits are big, they are taxed by Income Tax. They may be taxed through Surtax, and they may be taxed through Profits Tax. We have enough taxes upon success, but Income Tax, Surtax and Profits Tax are decided by legislation in this House. This House not only decides the rates which are to be levied, but decides at which levels the rates of tax are raised or lowered. Here, according to Mr. Wand's assessment, we have a progressive tax on profits; a progressive tax, decided not by Parliament or in public, but by Departmental officials and privately.
Therefore, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that this method of assessing garages is as wrong in form as it is wrong in essence, and that a tax designed to be related, as the rateable value of a business should be related, to the site, to the buildings, to the amenities and to the fittings, should not be levied on profits as well. Site, buildings, amenities and fittings are, I contend, the only factors which should be taken into account. According to Mr. Wand, they were the only factors which were taken into account. I would ask my hon. Friend to ensure that in future they are the only factors which are taken into account.

8.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): It will be convenient, I think, if I begin by defining my own status in this matter, which is, in fact, a very limited and rather indirect one.
The relevant statues lay down in general terms the basis upon which different types of property are to be assessed

for rating. Under the Local Government Act, 1948, it is the duty of the Inland Revenue to make those assessments in accordance with the law. The question whether, in any particular case, it has done so in accordance with the law is not a question for me. It is a question which, upon a proposal being made, falls to be decided, in the first instance, by a local valuation court, and, on appeal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) mentioned, by the Lands Tribunal.
It is, therefore, a question for the courts to decide whether, in any particular instance, the valuation officer has or has not succeeded in correctly interpreting the law of rating in connection with a particular property.
Of course, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and I, as answering for them in this House, have a responsibility for seeing that in general the valuation officers do, broadly, succeed in complying with the law as interpreted by the courts. It would be a matter of concern if it were found that in any particular area or in regard to any particular type of property, decisions of the courts showed that the assessments made by the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue were not in accordance with the requirements of the law.

Mr. Freeth: I am not complaining at all that the law is being contravened. All that the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, asks valuation officers to do, as I understand it, is to arrive at
 the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year"—
with various provisos. It is the method of assessing that rent, and nothing else, against which I am complaining.

Mr. Powell: But I do want to make clear that the question whether the right answer is arrived at or not is not for me; it is a question referable to courts as provided in the Acts and which only the courts in a particular case can decide. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and I come into the matter only if it appears, on the basis of decisions of courts, that the results arrived at by valuation officers are, in fact, not in accordance with the law. So much by way of defining my own limited status in this matter.
Like my hon. Friend. I propose not to comment—it would be quite wrong


for me to comment—on the particular case from which this debate took rise, which is, I understand, sub judice. I hope that he will understand if I prefer also not to comment, at any rate now, at this Box, upon a newspaper report; though, if my hon. Friend will let me have it, I will certainly look at it in detail and communicate with him if there is anything that I can usefully say. All I can do, here and now, is to make some general remarks upon the problems facing a valuation officer who is called upon, in the case of a property of this type, to interpret what would be—again, like my hon. Friend, I quote the words of the Statute—
 the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year "—
under certain conditions.
Petrol stations are not commonly let, nor are a good many other classes of property, such as public houses, hotels, racecourses and cinemas; and so some other approach has to be found rather than the very simple one of ascertaining at what actual rents comparable properties in the vicinity are letting.
Clearly, in arriving at the rent which a tenant would pay for a petrol station, if tenants did rent petrol stations, the business likely to be done at a particular petrol station is of very direct relevance. Thus, one would pay more rent for a petrol station on the Great North Road than for a petrol station on a by-road. One would pay more rent for a petrol station in a position which happened to catch and attract the traffic, which was well situated for a petrol station, than one would pay for a petrol station less well situated. So that the actual business which is done in a particular petrol station, in so far as it is an indication of the aptitude of that station for attracting business, is relevant to the rent which would be paid and thus to the correct assessment.

Mr. Freeth: Would my hon. Friend not agree——

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I will meet the point in my next sentence.
It would, of course, be quite wrong simply to take turnover at a particular garage under a particular manager in particular circumstances and to attempt to deduce from that in isolation the rent

which a tenant might reasonably pay from year to year. As my hon. Friend said, all sorts of factors enter into it, such as the hours at which the petrol station remains open and the business acumen and activity of the proprietor. All sorts of qualifications must, therefore, be applied and taken into account before turnover in a business of this sort can provide even a rough yardstick for the rent which a hypothetical tenant would pay for it from year to year.
One could not, however, even after those qualifications had duly been introduced, rely simply upon turnover. The buildings themselves, their value, their attractiveness, their modernity, and so on, must all be factors which would affect the letting value of the premises. I am sure that a correct assessment of one of these properties, which, by their nature, are so difficult to assess, cannot be arrived at unless all these factors are taken into account and given their proper weight.
Whether the result of taking those factors into account in any particular assessment does or does not hit the mark laid down and intended by Parliament is, I must again repeat, a matter which can only be decided by a court and, on appeal, by the Lands Tribunal. In the case to which my hon. Friend has referred, that course is being taken and it will be very interesting to see what is the result.
I can, however, give my hon. Friend the assurance that every effort is made by the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue to take into account all the factors reasonably bearing upon the letting value of these premises. In general, if we look at the decisions given on appeal by the courts and the Lands Tribunal, I think we should conclude that by and large their assessments are not too far from what, in the view of the courts, the law requires.
I do, however, in conclusion, repeat that I am perfectly ready to take the particular report which my hon. Friend quoted to the House and investigate it for him. The position which I have put before the House is the general position as it applies to the rating of these types of property throughout the country.

Mr. Freeth: Before my hon. Friend sits down——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member needs the leave of the House if he is to speak again.

Mr. Freeth: I was about to ask a question of my hon. Friend before he sat down. Will he not agree that, although he said that petrol stations were not normally rented, in fact tied petrol stations are rented, and that with the agreement of the owner it might well be possible to obtain the rent figure and to make due allowance for particular trading terms with which that rent was bound up?
Secondly, could my hon. Friend tell me whether or not it is true, as I have had it reported to me, that recently a directive went out from the Treasury that local valuation officers were not to place as much reliance as they had been doing in the past two years on petrol throughput? Thirdly, will he not agree that the essential thing that one has to try to get

is the aptitude of the station and not the aptitude of the garage proprietor?

Mr. Powell: Clearly, where the actual rent of a comparable station or of that station is available, that is a most important factor and might well be the decisive factor in determining the assessment or the decision of the court upon appeal. As regards the second question, I will certainly ascertain whether there has been any such directive. I do not think that it would be from the Treasury, if it existed at all, but I will certainly find out if I can trace any such directive and let my hon. Friend know. Thirdly, I have already agreed that in ascertaining the letting value for the purposes of assessment for rating, one must disregard the variation in aptitude as between different individual tenants.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.